The critics are correct, at least superficially: It is inaccurate; there are elements of his life and thought that are played down or omitted. But to create a tight, compelling show, you have to pare the story down to its most basic elements and almost a single track; otherwise it won't work on the stage, unless you had a one-person show, a different beast altogether. However, I do agree, it is not accurate history, nor could it be.
5
Enough! Tear down all monuments, statues and plaques of this man Hamilton. And for those who carry his face on the currency in their pockets - hand these bills over to me at once for proper disposition! There will be justice!
1
I was just curious if Angelica really introduced Eliza to Alexander, for cripes sake. :)
This article isn't really about whether or not "Hamilton" is historically accurate. It's about whether or not Hamilton was as good a guy as the show makes him appear to be, whether he cared enough about slavery, whether it's good (or not) that the cast is nearly all people of color. And so on. Those are really big and really subjective questions -- probably too big to answer in an NYT article.
1
Revisionist history and cultural appropriation of our one of our Scots Founding Fathers.
I am ashamed for the ignorance this pop propaganda perpetuates.
4
This article makes the claim that Hamilton was "more a man for the 1% than for the 99%'. It's almost as if the voice of Jefferson and Madison coming back to haunt him.
Unlike the rich Virginia slave owners (and long recognized heroes of our revolution), Hamilton was born into poverty and was never a wealthy man, even at his death. He was accused over and over of somehow secretly stealing from the treasury, and always cleared.
Hamilton did have the vision to understand that the US needed a stable financial system, his vision of what America would become was spot on. Without him would the nation have survived or would it have broken apart had the other founding father's vision of a weak central government won out?
7
What's most missing in "Hamilton," to me, is the fact that our Founders were not democrats: they feared rule by majorities of citizens, and made laws and constitutions to prevent it. Elites have to be featured in "Hamilton," because only elites could vote and hold office, and often race was less important to elite status than property (and gender). In the Early National period, the state nearest to democracy (which at the time meant votes for the propertyless—unenslaved males, of course) was Vermont which had no property qualification for voting and no slavery. Pennsylvania voters' property requirement was the lowest. Massachusetts' intricate graduated property qualifications for officeholding had been written into its constitution by John Adams. It took the Civil War to get rid of the property qualification for voting in Virginia.
And Hamilton was the creator of a notably undemocratic finance system that taxed the least propertied farmers in Pennsylvania with an excise on whiskey, largely in order to pay the interest on U.S. debt to its holders, who had lots and lots of property. My high-school students always learned this with wonder, and so did my middle-school students learning about democracy in Athens, but most American students think that democracy was the governmental system we started with, and so, it often seems, do the majority of political columnists.
And Hamilton was the creator of a notably undemocratic finance system that taxed the least propertied farmers in Pennsylvania with an excise on whiskey, largely in order to pay the interest on U.S. debt to its holders, who had lots and lots of property. My high-school students always learned this with wonder, and so did my middle-school students learning about democracy in Athens, but most American students think that democracy was the governmental system we started with, and so, it often seems, do the majority of political columnists.
4
He was an elitist, but his outsider status makes that make sense. He was obsessed with proving himself to people like Jefferson, but he also hated them and many of the things they stood for.
But I do believe you're misreading Eliza's line at the end. I don't think she's saying he would've done so much more about slavery, but just that he would have done so much more in general if he had lived the extra 50 years like Eliza did.
And though a 2 hour musical can't delve into all of the particulars of the man, it does a good job of showing him as a complicated human being. He has an emotional affair with his sister-in-law. He has a full blown affair and is black mailed and accused of treason. He is impulsive, hot-headed, and self-righteous. Smart man. Great man. But still an extremely flawed human being.
But I do believe you're misreading Eliza's line at the end. I don't think she's saying he would've done so much more about slavery, but just that he would have done so much more in general if he had lived the extra 50 years like Eliza did.
And though a 2 hour musical can't delve into all of the particulars of the man, it does a good job of showing him as a complicated human being. He has an emotional affair with his sister-in-law. He has a full blown affair and is black mailed and accused of treason. He is impulsive, hot-headed, and self-righteous. Smart man. Great man. But still an extremely flawed human being.
4
I haven't seen the show. I presume I would like it, though I have no urge to go (or frankly, to most shows). I believe I saw one song done by cast members on some tv show, or maybe it was a video, and I can't say I was intrigued.
But, were I to go, I would not have the slightest hope it might be historically accurate not find it wrong in any way that it was not, so long as it doesn't pretend to be, even though I am fairly history obsessed. Why should it? Fiction is rarely faithful to books or even original treatments. Sometimes it is way off, collapsing time, creating characters, throwing people together who never met, etc.
And although Chernow, who wrote a great book, praises the show to high heavens, and I am sure it has sold a lot more books, I seriously doubt that many people will make the time investment to actually read it because they saw a play. The book is long, scholarly and not easy reading. It is made for history junkies and they've probably already read it. I'm not being critical. I like the popularization of forgotten or near forgotten people. But people often exaggerate these things.
What I do dislike is the very modern need to make so much about identity. Somehow the spirit of MLK, Jr. has been warped to mean we should focus on skin color rather than the quality of character. The fact that a role is played by someone who is of a different skin color (or sex) than a historical figure is simply uninteresting to me.
But, were I to go, I would not have the slightest hope it might be historically accurate not find it wrong in any way that it was not, so long as it doesn't pretend to be, even though I am fairly history obsessed. Why should it? Fiction is rarely faithful to books or even original treatments. Sometimes it is way off, collapsing time, creating characters, throwing people together who never met, etc.
And although Chernow, who wrote a great book, praises the show to high heavens, and I am sure it has sold a lot more books, I seriously doubt that many people will make the time investment to actually read it because they saw a play. The book is long, scholarly and not easy reading. It is made for history junkies and they've probably already read it. I'm not being critical. I like the popularization of forgotten or near forgotten people. But people often exaggerate these things.
What I do dislike is the very modern need to make so much about identity. Somehow the spirit of MLK, Jr. has been warped to mean we should focus on skin color rather than the quality of character. The fact that a role is played by someone who is of a different skin color (or sex) than a historical figure is simply uninteresting to me.
7
This article really has nothing to do with how or how not historically accurate Hamilton is.
4
Before Hamilton was a twinkle in Miranada's eyes, there was already a play written and produced on Hamilton and Burr that was shown at musical festivals across the nation, including the NY Musical Festival, entitled "Affair of Honor". That play was heavily researched and consulted on by renowned Historians. It's a shame that the play isn't getting the recognition that it deserves as the first musical on Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Hopefully, there is room on Broadway for both plays.
2
You sure about that? From what I can see "Affair of Honor" was first performed in 2010. Lin Manuel Miranda has worked on Hamilton for at least the past 8 years. Something tells me he's been working on it for longer than that, even.
There are thousands of papers written every year on Hamilton by students. I wouldn't call it a shame that some of them are ignored.
There are thousands of papers written every year on Hamilton by students. I wouldn't call it a shame that some of them are ignored.
The play tells a story, one that conveys how every "story" shapes reality and helps co-create the future. Hurray to Mr. Miranda, his artistic associates, cast, and crew, for helping to make our nation's history come alive again. With art, he has made the founding fathers and birth of our nation a timely and relevant subject, now a lunchroom/dinner table and social media topic stirring robust and healthy discourse. We are reminded --everyone-- to think about our own narrative and to do something good with the short time we have here. I think it’s important to recognize that history is a translation of what has been, stemming from someone's perspective.
3
Hamilton and history need not be in sync. The Broadway show borrows a character from history and delivers entertainment. Should people decide to learn about Alexander Hamilton, the founding father, there are many sources for them to consult. It's worse than unfair to ask a Broadway show, intended to entertain, to do it with historic accuracy. It's counter productive.
Let Broadway entertain and sources based upon historical research educate. People know the difference.
Let Broadway entertain and sources based upon historical research educate. People know the difference.
5
Exactly. I don't go to the theatre for a history lesson. It's entertainment.
.
.
4
Jennifer Schuessler's opening paragraph suggests that "...Mr. Miranda’s dazzling rap lyrics pull off rhymes like “line of credit” and “financial diuretic.” These lyrics neither dazzle nor rhyme. This is a sample of the musical that's going to change forever the American Musical Theater? And from the press that fawns about its brilliance? As Sam Goldwyn said, "Include me out."
1
That was a poor example; incorrect and out of context. Here's the full excerpt from the cabinet rap battle between Hamilton and Jefferson:
"If we assume the debts, the union gets
A new line of credit, a financial diuretic
How do you not get it? If we’re aggressive and competitive
The union gets a boost. You’d rather give it a sedative?"
Regardless of what you hear, I would recommend forming your own opinion after listening to or watching the musical. Don't let the press make decisions for you.
"If we assume the debts, the union gets
A new line of credit, a financial diuretic
How do you not get it? If we’re aggressive and competitive
The union gets a boost. You’d rather give it a sedative?"
Regardless of what you hear, I would recommend forming your own opinion after listening to or watching the musical. Don't let the press make decisions for you.
9
I agree that it is unfortunate that roles of black people in the revolution have been overlooked in telling this story. The whitewashing of our history is truly tragic and those that tell history in modern times should fight to include the stories of non-white people. However, in the story-telling of the piece of art the Lin-Manuel has created, he has made dramatic choices just like any other creator of popular culture, be it books, movies, television, music and anything made with the intent of being consumed by an audience. It would have been more accurate and arguably better for society or whatever if there was a more thorough and nuanced exploration of Hamilton's history with slavery, but alas, the show is pretty long already and a producer or co-creator somewhere along the line thought better to make Hamilton less slave-friendly then he likely was.
Among the over-glorification of Hamilton's character, however, is the incredible choice to use actors of color and musical genres of their communities. This artistic choice presents the story and its mix of facts and exaggerations through a lens that changes the messaging and creates new and different meaning for our country's history to its audience. In the context of a Broadway show receiving critical acclaim and national attention, these actors and the artform are creating new meanings beyond just the historical truth of Alexander Hamilton. These new meanings are a history unto themselves and worthy of celebration.
Among the over-glorification of Hamilton's character, however, is the incredible choice to use actors of color and musical genres of their communities. This artistic choice presents the story and its mix of facts and exaggerations through a lens that changes the messaging and creates new and different meaning for our country's history to its audience. In the context of a Broadway show receiving critical acclaim and national attention, these actors and the artform are creating new meanings beyond just the historical truth of Alexander Hamilton. These new meanings are a history unto themselves and worthy of celebration.
3
Historians that criticize the Founders through a modern day prism on slavery, what representative democracy means, financial regulation, etc., that doesn't also factor in the era that they lived are philosophical absolutists and therefore probably inexorable in their judgement about any era in US history or world history. To be sure, I can find criticisms about any great leader since they are fallible in their judgement and reasoning; in short, human.
Was Hamilton a flawed individual? Yes. Did he have an elitist polticial view? Yes. Did he almost single handedly save the republic from financial ruin, therefore preserve the American experiment for further generations to improve upon? Yes. Why wasn't the latter accomplishment discussed by the critics in this piece? Because it doesn't fit their paridigm that they would rather find over emphasize Hamilton's faults so he is derogated instead of recognizing that he was IMO the smartest of the Founding Fathers and per other historians that know more than I, also think he was our best Secretary of the Treasury
Was Hamilton a flawed individual? Yes. Did he have an elitist polticial view? Yes. Did he almost single handedly save the republic from financial ruin, therefore preserve the American experiment for further generations to improve upon? Yes. Why wasn't the latter accomplishment discussed by the critics in this piece? Because it doesn't fit their paridigm that they would rather find over emphasize Hamilton's faults so he is derogated instead of recognizing that he was IMO the smartest of the Founding Fathers and per other historians that know more than I, also think he was our best Secretary of the Treasury
9
Same thing applies to Teddy Roosevelt. Was he an elitist? Yes. Did he do more than anyone of his time to protect workers in the workplace from slave conditions? Yes.
4
"But it omits, Ms. Monteiro noted, the known role of individuals like Cato, a slave who worked as an anti-British spy..."
Then Ms. Monteiro should write "Cato" the musical herself! The show is called Hamilton. And it's 3 hours long as it is. Give the guy a break!
Then Ms. Monteiro should write "Cato" the musical herself! The show is called Hamilton. And it's 3 hours long as it is. Give the guy a break!
10
Reading Ron Chernow, I understand Hamilton's elitism as part of his urge to organize and unleash the enormous economic power which, in visionary mode, he foresaw and indeed conceived.
He believed men of business were more important than other citizens because he understood that they would be the pivots of progress.
And thinking of the millions upon millions of American citizens who, over two centuries, have lived good lives thanks to America's dynamism, we can only honor Hamilton for his part in creating that.
Hamilton lived at a time when great things were possible, and he had the energy, guts and intelligence to become a veeritable Titan of history, overcoming the hardships of his early life, transforming them into strength.
In hindsight, of course there are points to criticize. But they pale next to the points to celebrate.
He believed men of business were more important than other citizens because he understood that they would be the pivots of progress.
And thinking of the millions upon millions of American citizens who, over two centuries, have lived good lives thanks to America's dynamism, we can only honor Hamilton for his part in creating that.
Hamilton lived at a time when great things were possible, and he had the energy, guts and intelligence to become a veeritable Titan of history, overcoming the hardships of his early life, transforming them into strength.
In hindsight, of course there are points to criticize. But they pale next to the points to celebrate.
2
As a lifelong fan of Alexander Hamilton, I have enjoyed the noteriety he has garnered through Mr. Miranda's musical. In popular culture his contributions were hitherto not celebrated.
His (and Madison's) vision for a nation, embodied in the Constitution, is monumental - the equal to Jefferson's Declaration and Washington's stewardship of the war. Hamilton's Reports on the debt, a central bank and manufacturing - all made while Secretary of Treasury - were hugely impressive, important and forward thinking.
But clearly, Hamilton was no man of the people. He distrusted pure democracy and the masses. This is all in the Chernow book, the basis of the show.
That is why I suspect that Secretary Lew (with Mr. Obama's probable blessing) designated Hamilton as the deceased white man to be removed from our currency and replaced with someone more politically correct.
Little did they know that soon after that announcement Hamilton would burst on the scene to become cool, the new darling of the Left. Indeed, some of my misguided friends from that camp insist that Hamilton would be a Democrat today. Ummm. No.
It will be interesting to see if Mr. Lew changes his mind on the $10 bill plan.
But, even if one doesn't care for Hamilton's elitism, suspicion of democracy and pro business policies, his rags to respectability story is compelling. That story's relevancy today is what appealed to Miranda and inspired him to write "Hamilton". It's a great American story.
His (and Madison's) vision for a nation, embodied in the Constitution, is monumental - the equal to Jefferson's Declaration and Washington's stewardship of the war. Hamilton's Reports on the debt, a central bank and manufacturing - all made while Secretary of Treasury - were hugely impressive, important and forward thinking.
But clearly, Hamilton was no man of the people. He distrusted pure democracy and the masses. This is all in the Chernow book, the basis of the show.
That is why I suspect that Secretary Lew (with Mr. Obama's probable blessing) designated Hamilton as the deceased white man to be removed from our currency and replaced with someone more politically correct.
Little did they know that soon after that announcement Hamilton would burst on the scene to become cool, the new darling of the Left. Indeed, some of my misguided friends from that camp insist that Hamilton would be a Democrat today. Ummm. No.
It will be interesting to see if Mr. Lew changes his mind on the $10 bill plan.
But, even if one doesn't care for Hamilton's elitism, suspicion of democracy and pro business policies, his rags to respectability story is compelling. That story's relevancy today is what appealed to Miranda and inspired him to write "Hamilton". It's a great American story.
1
I believe Mr. Hamilton has been saved and Mr. Jackson is being replaced, which makes sense since Jackson didn't approve of paper currency to begin with.
Thank you, Mr. Miranda - you have been instrumental in awakening an enthusiastic interest in history - two young girls here know the music by heart and are deep into Mr. Chernow's book. Don't think all their years in school have been as effective in opening their minds and hearts to this great experiment as this stunner of a musical.
2
If a middle-aged white male would have written "Hamilton" rather than Lin-Manuel Miranda, both blacks and whites would have excoriated this show into history before it had achieved any mass popularity.
"Hamilton" affords an audience something in addition to entertainment.
"Hamilton" affords an audience something in addition to entertainment.
2
Good Lord. Insert the Debbie Downer sound clip here. Waah-wah.
1
"the show’s multiethnic casting obscures the almost complete lack of identifiable African-American characters, making the country’s founding seem like an all-white affair.
“It’s an amazing piece of theater, but it concerns me that people are seeing it as a piece of history,” writes Lyra D. Monteiro.
Sadly, I guess this is one more way to diminish multi- ethnic casting and turn it all on its head. Ms. Monteiro misses the point of the whole gorgeous enterprise- for art to help us see the world in a new way.
“It’s an amazing piece of theater, but it concerns me that people are seeing it as a piece of history,” writes Lyra D. Monteiro.
Sadly, I guess this is one more way to diminish multi- ethnic casting and turn it all on its head. Ms. Monteiro misses the point of the whole gorgeous enterprise- for art to help us see the world in a new way.
4
The founding of our country was mostly a white only affair.
And so the key and very clever thing about "Hamilton" is the multiracial cast. It neutralizes race and makes people focus on the underlying incredible and near miraculous story of this founding. (Check out the story of the evacuation of Washington's army from Long Island/Brooklyn.)
And Hamilton being at the very center of most of it. Just incredible. You couldn't make it up.
And so the key and very clever thing about "Hamilton" is the multiracial cast. It neutralizes race and makes people focus on the underlying incredible and near miraculous story of this founding. (Check out the story of the evacuation of Washington's army from Long Island/Brooklyn.)
And Hamilton being at the very center of most of it. Just incredible. You couldn't make it up.
4
No show of this type can be perfect, but considering its totality, the complaints do seem more like quibbles than anything else. I doubt the minority cast and creator would be so cavalier with these issues to the degree of glossing over such issues as race and slavery. I've listened to the album many times, and it certainly does not avoid these issues.
1
Each historian seems to demand that all discussions of history have their own ideological focus. :-) This gives me some license to do the same. (Smileys are uncommon in NYT comments, but the modern "punctuation mark" for irony seems appropriate.)
Hamilton's defense of capital is a reminder to today that capital need not be the enemy of democracy and freedom. It created opportunities for both individuals and the growth of a nation. It was also the means of displacing slavery.
As for Hamilton's elitism, his fear of the mob was part of his ideology of democracy and liberty. A reminder that popularism can be a threat to liberty seems very relevant in a year of Trump, Cruz, and Sanders.
Hamilton's defense of capital is a reminder to today that capital need not be the enemy of democracy and freedom. It created opportunities for both individuals and the growth of a nation. It was also the means of displacing slavery.
As for Hamilton's elitism, his fear of the mob was part of his ideology of democracy and liberty. A reminder that popularism can be a threat to liberty seems very relevant in a year of Trump, Cruz, and Sanders.
1
It's Broadway, not Harvard law or history. There is no Mary Poppins, Peter Pan, a singing Phantom of the Opera, or a bunch of people running around with painted faces making them look like cats. Maybe Halloween can bring a few of these out. If someone wants to teach history or Harvard law, let them rent a theater and sell tickets. Professors just love to get their names in the paper. So there will always be some who will see a Broadway hit and jump at the opportunity.
2
History scholars need to debate whether a Broadway musical reflects their received view of reality? What about Evita? Or, Jesus Christ Superstar? Or, Oklahoma? Aren't they all about a re-interpreted reality? Isn't that what theater presents? Such analysis as these historians offer is not thoughtful criticism. It's just silly.
5
Disappointing to read so many historians judging and evaluating Hamilton, and any historical figure, based on today's norms and mindsets rather than by the standards in place at the time; they seem to want to portray history in the way they wish it was as opposed to what it was. That said, Hamilton's perspectives on race and slavery were far ahead of his peers, even if not as developed as his critics of today would like, with 200+ years of additional perspective. Likewise, we should be awed at his accomplishments as Sec of the Treasury and work in getting the Constitution ratified. Yes, he may have been an elitist who mistrusted the masses, but he was the lone Founding Father who was a true, self-made man who rose from nothing to the halls of power on sheer merit and intellectual power. Yes, I for one am glad that Miranda chose to highlight Hamilton.
14
Too much anti-intellectualism here. God forbid that scholars want to study a subject, then present some insightful thoughts. God forbid, they ask us to look deeper.
4
"God forbid that scholars want study a subject, then present some insightful thoughts."
You have no basis to make such a statement.
You have no basis to make such a statement.
Plus, this show has caught the attention of many young people still in school. At least they are excited about learning SOME American history!!!
2
Multiethnic cast playing our great founders, who happened to have been white. And this is historical? And, yes, the founding of our country was pretty much an all-white affair.
Even the most rabid of the politically correct, increase-black-self-esteem critics will have a hard time around this.
And, by the way, is the view of his politics driven by political correctness?
Even the most rabid of the politically correct, increase-black-self-esteem critics will have a hard time around this.
And, by the way, is the view of his politics driven by political correctness?
7
Hamiltonian values rule the nation. Money enjoys more equality, justice, and liberty than the middle classes or poor. The Bank of the United States has been replaced by the Federal Reserve Bank. Sadly exports are a fraction of imports, unlike Hamilton's desire. States are subservient to the National Government, but Hamilton would loathe GOP stances on guns and abortion.
What are your references for Hamilton's views on abortion or gun rights?
1
Some folks have advocated the removal of Hamilton from the $10 bill. I must assume that they have not read Chernow's biography of Hamilton, or accounts of The Battle of Yorktown. Hamilton belongs on the $10 bill as much as Lincoln on the $5 or Washington on the $1.
4
What about the historian Darren Staloff's view? He is a Hamilton expert.
1
I simply can't take this article seriously. Of course it is not in sync with history. Hamilton wasn't Latino, Jefferson wasn't black, and singing and dancing was not part the historical record. It's a play, not a documentary. The historians mentioned in the article seem to be clueless. The country's founding was indeed an all-white affair. There were 56 signers to the Declaration of Independence, all were white males. There were 39 signers to the Constitution, all were white males. In total, 89 different individuals signed, all white. We have had 44 presidents, all male. The first 43 were white, the last one was mixed race--half white, half black African. This is simply historical fact. Cato was a slave who acted as a courier of intelligence for his owner Hercules Mulligan, not a spy. He was more eighteenth-century FedEx delivery driver than revolutionary James Bond. Very little is known about Cato at all, including what happened to him after the Revolution. It is not enough to acknowledge the genuine evil mistreatment of slaves and their centuries-long, political disenfranchisement. Now we have to exaggerate the impact of minorities on the founding so kids of color today won't feel left out of the story. This is all feel-good revisionism . . .
5
"The historians mentioned in the article seem to be clueless"
You have no basis to make such a statement.
You have no basis to make such a statement.
Read the post, which provides the evidence for the statement. Any suggestion that the founding was not an all-white affair is pure political correctness. This isn't historical insight but the propagation of an agenda . . .
Scott, I think David's comment had no other purpose than to return the feigned slight you committed by commenting the same on his post. I agree with you. They call for Cato to be glorified, but mention Hercules Mulligan's accomplishments in only two songs. It seems an odd request. Yes, they could've focused on Sally Hemings or Cato, but that wouldn't contribute much to a play about Hamilton. Additionally, it sadly seems the concept of our now diverse nation being on display in the telling of an all-white story is lost on these scholars.
I just find it highly suspect that the intelligentsia, shall we say, are so eager to attach their names, any way they can, to a work of such overwhelming popularity...could it be simply a sure-fire way to get their names in print?
3
The people, sir, are a great beast, so saith Hamilton. He, along with the rest of the founders were anti- democratic . Hamilton favored monarchy. The only liberal in the crowd was Tom Paine. Now that would be a great musical.
4
A debate concerning the historical accuracy of "Hamilton" the musical? Ya better add "Evita" to critical historical review. I thought a musical, by virtue of its theatrical genre, automatically acquired a movie's caveat, "Based on true events". Never heard of a musical being classified as a documentary.
5
I am waiting for supra titles before I go to this show. Does anyone know when that will be?
Chernow, in his fabulous book, describes Hamilton and his wife Eliza as frequently attending the Park Theater on lower Broadway. Once they went with "George and Martha Washington to the John Street Theater to see Richard Brinsley Sheridan's comedy The Critic."
He was "a habitué of the theater, whether classical tragedies or lighter fare, and he attended the Philharmonic Society concerts at Snow's Hotel on Broadway."
How thrilled he would be to see himself portrayed on a Broadway stage 200+ years later. (And how familiar the slurs would seem.)
He was "a habitué of the theater, whether classical tragedies or lighter fare, and he attended the Philharmonic Society concerts at Snow's Hotel on Broadway."
How thrilled he would be to see himself portrayed on a Broadway stage 200+ years later. (And how familiar the slurs would seem.)
3
"How thrilled he would be to see himself portrayed on a Broadway stage...."
No way; he could not afford the tickets.
No way; he could not afford the tickets.
‘Founders Chic?’ I didn't know it was "chic" to appreciate our Founding Fathers. This is why people hate so-called elites and why, in response, we have Palins, Cruzes, and Trumps to deal with. For a historically-based play or movie to get the Ivy League seal of approval, apparently, it needs to thoroughly trash the central figure--to the extent ignoring their unique characteristics for their time. Abolitionism, for example, was not the top priority in 1776 and yet for a super-wealthy white male at the very center of power in early America to oppose slavery--even if it wasn't his first priority--is, apparently, irrelevant. Instead, we should focus on the fact that he was wealthy (a crime?), skeptical of populism and mass democracy, and favored strong banking institutions according to Misters Wilentz and Foner. Hamilton gave us the foundation for the most solid financial and monetary system in the world. And considering the threat posed by masses of Trump voters, his concern over the mob seems pretty well-founded.
One more point, as a quick aside--the show's treatment of Jefferson is understandable coming from Hamilton's POV. But the nearly 3 decade shaming of Jefferson has to stop. Ms. Gordon-Reed made her career out of shaming our most intellectually brilliant President. Despite his personal gain from slavery, he wrote the most powerful critique of its inherent evil.
I'd humbly propose to the show's creators to produce a similar Jefferson in response in the near future!
One more point, as a quick aside--the show's treatment of Jefferson is understandable coming from Hamilton's POV. But the nearly 3 decade shaming of Jefferson has to stop. Ms. Gordon-Reed made her career out of shaming our most intellectually brilliant President. Despite his personal gain from slavery, he wrote the most powerful critique of its inherent evil.
I'd humbly propose to the show's creators to produce a similar Jefferson in response in the near future!
9
You should read Chernow's book on Hamilton; he was not really a wealthy man; indeed when it came to his own personal financial affairs, he was somewhat disinterested. Lucky for him he married into a wealthy family. According to Chernow, the source of Hamilton's sensitivity about slavery was instilled at an early age when he saw the cruelty inflicted on slaves in St. croix.
Anything positive about Jefferson would be seen as racist. Cruz, by the way, is a brilliant attorney.
Agree with you about Thomas Jefferson. Time for a little perspective on that great man.
Much of the trashing began with Joseph Ellis' "American Sphinx."
You know him offtheclock99? He's the professor who told his students that he saw combat in Viet Nam. Problem is, he didn't. I don't think he even served in the military.
Much of the trashing began with Joseph Ellis' "American Sphinx."
You know him offtheclock99? He's the professor who told his students that he saw combat in Viet Nam. Problem is, he didn't. I don't think he even served in the military.
1
So many commenters here repeat the tired old idea that however you trick children into liking history or any other learning that you want them to take up it's worth it. Are there no adults here who realize that in order to raise(up) children you must remember that they often don't know what to do and are in need of guidance from someone who does? Quit coddling kids and tell them what to do when that is what they need. Johnny, study your history and tell me what you have learned.
11
Because truth may make them have nightmares.
1
That seems an unnecessary anger. Studying history and listening to Hamilton are not mutually exclusive. I studied history and did very well in all the classes. But, as an adult, Hamilton sparked a new excitement in me about this era in our history, and drove me to read more on our founding. I praise it for sparking interest. Most students get tired of hearing the same facts about the revolution by high school and are, unfortunately, disinterested in this time in American history. Perhaps listening to the clean version of some of the songs could not only renew their interest, but explain the specifics of the era (cabinet meetings, the fights between the founding fathers, why we didn't support the French Revolution) to students who may not have fully grasped them prior.
1
I don't know why critics assume audiences are becoming uncritical fans of Hamilton the historical figure. Among the college students I know (my daughter and her friends and fellow theater majors) who are enthralled by the musical, many are reading and sharing round Chernow's book on Hamilton, while others are in awe of the musicality. My daughter herself says, "It's historical fiction, not straight history; and anyway who says straight history is unbiased?" We've had extended discussions in our household about the nature of historical truth and narrative/artistic truth, and the role of an artistic representation of history, which is what this is: it is not "history" itself.
3
Reading the article and comments wants me to see this even more. This is the kind of conversation we need all the time. A great service from Mr. Miranda and a great conversation on American history. Thank you.
2
How many musical bios are based on facts?
I can just see some editor leaning back in his chair at the NYT and coming up with a story idea in which the reporter's job is to find people to criticize this remarkable and brilliant show. Seems like just another transparent attempt to stir up a little controversy.
2
i can only assume that my previous comment was not approved because i deigned to point out that this show is not, as stated, "the best advertisement for racial diversity in Broadway history," because it uses race as the single most important determining factor when picking actors (whites need not apply) but rather "the best example of why you don't have to cast white folks in your musical to get an audience."
those are different things. the latter is important, no doubt, but this show is not about "diversity." it is about making a point through racial exclusion.
those are different things. the latter is important, no doubt, but this show is not about "diversity." it is about making a point through racial exclusion.
I would disagree with your statement. They clearly worded their infamous casting call poorly, but such is the nature of casting calls. Even if not explicitly stated, casting directors usually have a vision for that character: race, hair color, energy of the actor. I have a friend in NY who didn't receive a role because her hair color didn't match the casting board's vision. Is this exclusion? Additionally, there are white people in Hamilton. It's sad the idea of a diverse cast retelling an all-white story as a metaphor for America's change is lost on you.
Also, it is likely the "single most important determining factor" for casting in a musical is likely musical ability, or ability to sing, not race.
Also, it is likely the "single most important determining factor" for casting in a musical is likely musical ability, or ability to sing, not race.
April 11 2016
The currency of theater is in this drama best out of sync with the nature of is the making of pluralistic history; and how ordinary becomes extraordinary.
“I never expect to see a perfect work from an imperfect man".
Alexander Hamilton”
JJA Manhattan, N.Y.
The currency of theater is in this drama best out of sync with the nature of is the making of pluralistic history; and how ordinary becomes extraordinary.
“I never expect to see a perfect work from an imperfect man".
Alexander Hamilton”
JJA Manhattan, N.Y.
1
Somehow, the statement that Mr Hamilton was in the "1%" suggests that he by definition is suspect. Since many if not most of our "founding fathers" were landowners, educated and by the standards of the day "elite", I suppose that many today would dismiss their incredible accomplishments and insights because they were in such a social class. This notwithstanding the fact that their concepts were not only literally, but intellectually radical for the period in which they lived.
To judge them by the standards we hold ourselves to now is ludicrous. It would probably be impossible to find anyone in that time period whose values and standards matched those to which we strive today. In fact, I suspect that even the most revered historical figure of any kind would, upon close examination, violate some value which we now hold dear.
These men should be judged not by the characteristics which differ from those we now want in our leaders, but by the phenomenal fact that they created an entire nation based upon such firm principles that have survived to this day. The fact that those principles have in many cases required evolution in no way diminishes how profound they were.
To judge them by the standards we hold ourselves to now is ludicrous. It would probably be impossible to find anyone in that time period whose values and standards matched those to which we strive today. In fact, I suspect that even the most revered historical figure of any kind would, upon close examination, violate some value which we now hold dear.
These men should be judged not by the characteristics which differ from those we now want in our leaders, but by the phenomenal fact that they created an entire nation based upon such firm principles that have survived to this day. The fact that those principles have in many cases required evolution in no way diminishes how profound they were.
4
It's a musical, people! If anything, it may send people looking for the history as documented--or looking to further document the history.
This is a controversy only the fustiest could love. Give it a rest, folks!
This is a controversy only the fustiest could love. Give it a rest, folks!
2
All the founding fathers were elitists. Some more than others.
Define "elitist."
3rd try why is it ok to Cast Black people as known historical White people but the reverse is not so, and which causes great outrage
-
And does anyone even know about, or have read, the Federalist Papers?
Or be able to read them the OpEds of the day, to explain and advocate our Const, not that we use it, the Const, very much these days, except as a projective test
-
And does anyone even know about, or have read, the Federalist Papers?
Or be able to read them the OpEds of the day, to explain and advocate our Const, not that we use it, the Const, very much these days, except as a projective test
2
It is almost never valid to judge any historical figure by one characteristic or political position. The most we can expect of our heroes is that they were further along the path to what we consider a civilized society than those around them. That does not preclude a balanced and comprehensive evaluation of their lives, but instead requires it.
Can we just not enjoy entertainment anymore? Must everything be nit picked? I am sure that the protrayal of anything historical could be challenged on some grounds, no matter the attempt to make that portrayal as accurate as possible. Why not just celebrate an extraordinary achievement of art that is apparently actually interesting children in history. Imagine that.
Alexander Hamilton is being viewed through a contemporary lens, and the play is focusing on some of the salient facts of an important person to this country historically. The very fact that he was an aborlitionist at that time in history is extraordinary.
I am not worried about the total historical accuracy of this play. I am worried about history being re-written for text books to reflect a particular political point of view, with mandated use in some classrooms in some states.
Alexander Hamilton is being viewed through a contemporary lens, and the play is focusing on some of the salient facts of an important person to this country historically. The very fact that he was an aborlitionist at that time in history is extraordinary.
I am not worried about the total historical accuracy of this play. I am worried about history being re-written for text books to reflect a particular political point of view, with mandated use in some classrooms in some states.
2
Heaven help us from smarter-than-thou academics who love to whine, nitpick and criticize. Here you have Lin-Manuel Miranda who sweated blood, tears, and sweat, put it all to make this successful musical... and the academics?
Hey, if you don't like his musical, create your own. "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
Hey, if you don't like his musical, create your own. "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
3
Musical is one thing; fantasy another. Maybe you should stick with Disney.
Understanding that there must be a check and balance between the stupid and intelligent, educated and ignorant, and capitalists and workers is extremely important for a proper structure of government.
Hamilton was not an elitist per se. He was worried about allowing the stupidity of the masses create an unstable society.
Hamilton was not an elitist per se. He was worried about allowing the stupidity of the masses create an unstable society.
1
It is just a musical, and isn't meant to be a pure biography. Hamilton was a complex person, the brilliant man who single handedly figured out how to get the states and the US out of the financial hole they were in at the end of the revolution may have kept the US from ending up like later colonies that threw off their founding countries (or invading countries), and in many ways he was one of the key founders. His vision for an industrial america, versus the 'agrarian paradise' Jefferson pushed for, turned out to be the right one, if you look at how the north and south developed, what the south turned out to be is what the whole country may have been like, a landed gentry with slave labor and a lot of very poor people, had Jefferson and his vision held.
On the other hand, Hamilton also had dreams of glory for himself and came to think that he somehow was what the country needed, without running for office. Hamilton during the Washington administration was all gung ho to raise an army to go and fight the French who were then in control of Mexico, and then had plans to come back at the head of the triumphant army and basically declare himself the leader, a military coup. He was constantly outstripping the bounds of what he was supposed to be, grabbing for power, and more than a few historians have suggested that Aaron Burr, as much of a scalywag as he was,may have done the country a favor when he killed Hamilton.
On the other hand, Hamilton also had dreams of glory for himself and came to think that he somehow was what the country needed, without running for office. Hamilton during the Washington administration was all gung ho to raise an army to go and fight the French who were then in control of Mexico, and then had plans to come back at the head of the triumphant army and basically declare himself the leader, a military coup. He was constantly outstripping the bounds of what he was supposed to be, grabbing for power, and more than a few historians have suggested that Aaron Burr, as much of a scalywag as he was,may have done the country a favor when he killed Hamilton.
2
Would that the commentators who see "Hamilton" a a pleasant work of political fiction that should not betaken seriously also see Fox news as the same.
1
Form follows function. Miranda's vision for the fictional work that is "Hamilton" includes "a story about America then, told by America now." Living in America now, Miranda delivers a cogent critique of many of the founders' foibles, missteps and lost chances. That many parts in the play are performed by people of color--collectively giving voice to the critique while embracing the tale of our idealistic, albeit imperfect, national origin through their creative presence--is an unspoken statement of affirmation, legacy and ownership.
Hamilton's own faults are not exempt from this treatment. But Hamilton is the driving force--and Miranda's muse--on our dive into the river of possibilities that was the American Revolution.
Hamilton's own faults are not exempt from this treatment. But Hamilton is the driving force--and Miranda's muse--on our dive into the river of possibilities that was the American Revolution.
1
As a historian, Hamilton's accomplishments are far more about his attachment to rich urban politics and the focus on property ownership than abolition of slavery. In fact, when I teach US History to 1877, Hamilton tends to get treated like the elitist he is. There is no good way to say this but Hamilton the play is a wonderful piece of theater and an utter piece of trash as history. It's that simple.
1
@Philliip B: Sorry, but speaking as a historian myself, you have just vastly and undeservedly misrepresented "Hamilton" by saying it's "an utter piece of trash as history." It assuredly is NOT trash; on the contrary, it's treasure for the simple reason that it engages people and sends them out wanting to know MORE - to read and to educate themselves further!
Ask people on the street who wrote the Bill of Rights, or about the Federalist Papers, or what the Reynolds Pamphlet was about - most adults can't even answer those questions.
Most audience members come out of "Hamilton" knowing a lot more about American history than they knew going in. Thank you, Lin-Manuel Miranda!
Ask people on the street who wrote the Bill of Rights, or about the Federalist Papers, or what the Reynolds Pamphlet was about - most adults can't even answer those questions.
Most audience members come out of "Hamilton" knowing a lot more about American history than they knew going in. Thank you, Lin-Manuel Miranda!
6
One thing that stands out in the comments is how thoroughly misinformed people are about Alexander Hamilton. Put aside whatever labels have been pasted on him, and you are left with this: Hamilton's vision of what America could be, and needed to be (without slavery, which he detested), enabled our fledgling democracy to survive, grow and prosper as a nation. He had no equal among the Founders for his knowledge of economics and financial markets and the importance of trade for America's farmers and manufacturers.
He was a great, irreplaceable, figure in our nation's formative years.
He was a great, irreplaceable, figure in our nation's formative years.
2
Hamilton was not an advocate of slavery, but when the issue of slavery came into conflict with his personal ambitions, his belief in property rights, or his belief of what would promote America’s interests, Hamilton chose those goals over opposing slavery. In the instances where Hamilton supported granting freedom to blacks, his primary motive was based more on practical concerns rather than an ideological view of slavery as immoral. Hamilton’s decisions show that his desire for the abolition of slavery was not his priority.
Simply put, Alexander Hamilton was, in some parts of his life, a not angelic character. But from our 2016 point of view, it must be acknowledged that America would be a much different place today had he not put his stamp on our historical development.
Many of his brilliant contemporaries had their darker sides (slave owners, mistresses, etc.) and we cut them lots of slack. At the very least Mr. Hamilton is deserving of similar and equal treatment. And by the way, Miranda is a genius and the show he wrote (and stars in) is truly BRILLIANT.
Many of his brilliant contemporaries had their darker sides (slave owners, mistresses, etc.) and we cut them lots of slack. At the very least Mr. Hamilton is deserving of similar and equal treatment. And by the way, Miranda is a genius and the show he wrote (and stars in) is truly BRILLIANT.
3
As soon as someone starts shouting "elitist" at the self-educated, brilliant, ambitious, pragmatic, and hard-working Hamilton, I wonder how much they actually know about the guy. Are they partisans for the Jeffersonian view of our future utopia. It would have been a static, regimented caste system with only a very few privileged individuals living in comfort at the top. That sounds rather more "elitist" -- and familiar -- to me.
1
I am glad that a new musical theatre work has created such attention in the public for our nation's founding. It was and is a complex era that has been repeatedly distorted for person reasons of ambition, notably by a recently deceased Supreme Court Justice. I believe that the motivation to create this work is important and worthy of attention and praise. It also should provoke re-examination of the era, as it has been grossly distorted by so many in our own era, but I believe the criticism of a play for any perceived (or actual) lack of historical accuracy misses the point of the nature of art. Shakespeare's History plays are not accurate history, but what they do is to illuminate human striving, failure, and the stories they tell still fascinate, move, and illuminate 400 years after their author's death. That is the nature of art, to be a parable of human nature and our world, not a map of our DNA. The accuracy of such a map is important, as should be our understanding of history, but we do not get history from films or books of fiction, those things provoke us in other and important ways. We need them both. Where we need history most is in our educational, political, legislative, and judicial processes, where they are sadly lacking. This is where art can help to get us back on track, to inspire us to look more deeply at things that really matter.
2
I am guessing these critical writings are justifications for using research grants to pay scalper prices for tickets.
1
It’s very strange to critique a Broadway musical for not going into the amount of detail that would require several volumes of books. The book that the play was based on didn’t contain everything that this article is apparently wanting. Movies and plays always omit things from the books that they’re based on. I think it’s enough that Mr. Miranda’s book has gotten a lot of people interested enough in history that they’re actually reading non-fiction historic books. The play is also a very enjoyable theatrical experience and it’s produced a very enjoyable soundtrack.
2
Attacking a musical play based on its historical inaccuracies; I am guessing these same people finally put to rest the George Washington “Cherry Tree Myth.”
The only reason these so-called experts have for criticizing a musical play because its historical inaccuracies no not meet the “purist” nature underlying their “identity” politics agenda. Never mind the fact that addressing the slavery issue in the late 18th century was politically unfeasible.
The other reason behind the “experts” criticism of a highly successful play is to raise their profile among the MSM. I would not be surprised to see these “experts” making the rounds on the cable and MSM news networks, over the next several weeks.
Moreover, I wonder if any of these experts could name one biography that was historically accurate.
Finally, if “Hamilton” raised the public interest in actual American history, then despite any shortcomings it has accomplished more than our current school systems.
The only reason these so-called experts have for criticizing a musical play because its historical inaccuracies no not meet the “purist” nature underlying their “identity” politics agenda. Never mind the fact that addressing the slavery issue in the late 18th century was politically unfeasible.
The other reason behind the “experts” criticism of a highly successful play is to raise their profile among the MSM. I would not be surprised to see these “experts” making the rounds on the cable and MSM news networks, over the next several weeks.
Moreover, I wonder if any of these experts could name one biography that was historically accurate.
Finally, if “Hamilton” raised the public interest in actual American history, then despite any shortcomings it has accomplished more than our current school systems.
2
Just what is the problem here?? The Scholars aren't getting enough attention, so they suddenly want 'The Roar of the Greasepaint -- The Smell of the Crowd'?? .... well, that's showbiz.
6
Are you a mind reader? Scholars have every right to question the accuracy of "Hamilton." I doubt their motive is for attention.
@David Henry
I'm not any more of a mind-reader than you are. But at least, I'm open-minded to the efficacy of a show like this one.
Another thing. In this entertainment-driven society, both Scholars and Historians should be pleased, if not thankful, that future generations are taking an active interest in the personage of Alexander Hamilton...warts and all. Don't you think????
I'm not any more of a mind-reader than you are. But at least, I'm open-minded to the efficacy of a show like this one.
Another thing. In this entertainment-driven society, both Scholars and Historians should be pleased, if not thankful, that future generations are taking an active interest in the personage of Alexander Hamilton...warts and all. Don't you think????
@David Henry: As a historian, I think you are quite wrong; "scholars" frequently chase both fame and attention. I think it galls them that Lin-Manuel Miranda did something that's beyond their power to "approve of."
I think if those extolling this show's virtues, and that includes the Times, were to treat "Hamilton" as a fabulist's musings, along the lines of Quentin Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds", I would feel more comfortable with the "it's just a show" line so many here are taking. But the Federalist/Republican split, that (one might argue) came to a head with Jackson (a Democratic Republican and then simply a Democrat) is still very much with us today. I would argue that misrepresentations of the sort it seems are part and parcel to "Hamilton" have consequences in the present. Lest we forget Santayana "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
What folks need to concentrate on is the materials prepared for the students who will see the show. I don't think there is any question that this is a masterful piece of theater with an infectious cast album. Anything can be debated and critiqued but let's not get confused. We have textbooks referring to slaves as immigrants and that's the history we should be worried about. I once heard a clerk in the Monticello gift shop tell a woman that Fawn Brodie's book was trash, after the docent had told us on the tour that most historians accepted Jefferson as the father of "at least one of Sally Hemings' children" History has its eyes on a lot of people!
2
Deborah, slaves were immigrants. Indeed, at least the last time I visited, the display concerning 19th century immigration patterns at Ellis Island included all peoples forcibly brought to the Western Hemisphere (the vast majority I might add, to Brazil)
I once heard a docent at Sturbridge Village say, indignantly, that there were "no slaves in New England."
Immigration is a choice. Slaves were not immigrants.
3
Scholars wish they could sell tickets and make a fraction of the money that show is pulling in. Not to say that the minions that flock to the show critiqued by said scholars would be happy if 1% would read their work.
3
like the wonderful and much-neglected musical "1776" this show picques the interest of some of the audience to further research, even if only superficially. i know that my interest in the history of the American Revolution and it's after-effect were heightened by seeing 1776 in its first run, and the movie and the revival. it was fun! it was interesting. but even there, revisionist history was at play; Jefferson and Adams are shown as bitterly anti-slavery and gave up the freedom of the slaves as a cost of doing business. obviously jefferson wasn't as anti-slavery as we always thought. and, business of the modern age, erased the song "Ever to the Right" from the movie because Richard Nixon was offended by it. (or so we're told -- perhaps another piece of modern mythology). enjoy Hamilton as the brilliant, creative, fun show it is. then go to the library and get some american history books. our Revolution has been too long neglected in favor of the Civil War and World War II.
2
I'm a historian. A Ph.D. "public historian". And, thankfully, retired. For while, I understand the academic hand wringing at the recent meeting of the National Council on Public History, my fellow historians really do seem to miss that there really is a difference between entertainment and scholarship. Perhaps they are thrilled their little debate found its way to the pages of the NY Times, but my guess is it will do more harm than good to the historical profession to air it far and wide.
3
I'm thinking of the scene in "The Big Short" when the actors broke the fourth wall and said, "It didn't really happen like this..." There could be a song called, "No one else was in the room when it happened somewhat like this but events are still open to interpretation." That's a mouthful to sing out, even for someone as talented as Leslie Odom, Jr.
1
I read a thoughtful remark over the weekend that "Hamilton" - the show, not the man - is a three-legged stool: history, musical theatre, and hip-hop. A full critique must engage all three "legs," and few of us possess the comprehensive perspective to do so well; I found Dr. Gordon-Reed's blog post to contain both factual errors (about the types of singing that characters of different skin tones perform) and also incomplete in its understanding of the difference theatre and the production of it (for instance, she criticizes the "white-seeming" Phillipa Soo as Eliza Schuyler, yet the actress's understudy is African-American; would her critique stand had she seen the understudy in the role instead?). Dr. Monteiro's piece raised some provocative questions, but her scholarship was similarly incomplete. For instance, she selectively references what Mr. Miranda has said about the impact of his father's success after emigrating and its role in his understanding of Hamilton's self-made nature (Dr. Monteiro finds this problematic), yet ignoring Mr. Miranda's quoted comparisons of Hamilton to hip-hop stars like Biggie Smalls, who also "wrote their way out" of impoverished circumstances and accumulated power.
Part of the remarkable joy of "Hamilton" is that it allows the audience to imagine, What if? Thoughtful criticisms can strengthen our appreciation of the musical as art, but it should nonetheless be understood as distinct from the work of scholarly historical research.
Part of the remarkable joy of "Hamilton" is that it allows the audience to imagine, What if? Thoughtful criticisms can strengthen our appreciation of the musical as art, but it should nonetheless be understood as distinct from the work of scholarly historical research.
3
Chernow's biography is a masterpiece of content and style. His vouching (if that is the right word) for the piece is enough for me.
9
Agree. An all-time great book. I think the jealousy of Chernow is evident in the churlish remarks by the historians in the article.
3
Wow. love the conversation.
Of course its not 100 percent on target. It is hard to make it so.
This reminds me of a recent "outrage" by Americans over the refugees being expelled from Syria. My first thought was have we totally forgotten about the "Trail of Tears", when Andrew Jackson expelled indigenous American Indians from the eastern US, their long standing homeland, which Europeans invaded!!!!
That said, we are so fortunate that these early Americans like Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson and others pushed our nation way forward of the rest of the world in its philosophy of governance.
Of course its not 100 percent on target. It is hard to make it so.
This reminds me of a recent "outrage" by Americans over the refugees being expelled from Syria. My first thought was have we totally forgotten about the "Trail of Tears", when Andrew Jackson expelled indigenous American Indians from the eastern US, their long standing homeland, which Europeans invaded!!!!
That said, we are so fortunate that these early Americans like Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson and others pushed our nation way forward of the rest of the world in its philosophy of governance.
I sounded the alarm about "Hamilton" in Counterpunch.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/21/hamilton-the-musical-black-actors... Saying that Hamilton was not as opposed to slavery as the musical “Hamilton”shows is an understatement/The guy was a slave trader:
“We find that in his books there are entries showing that he purchased them for himself and for others. Cash to N. Low 2 negro servants purchased by him for me, $250. (Hamilton expense-book.)"From "The Intimate Life of Alexander Hamilton Based Chiefly Upon Original Family Letters" by Allan McLane Hamilton.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/21/hamilton-the-musical-black-actors... Saying that Hamilton was not as opposed to slavery as the musical “Hamilton”shows is an understatement/The guy was a slave trader:
“We find that in his books there are entries showing that he purchased them for himself and for others. Cash to N. Low 2 negro servants purchased by him for me, $250. (Hamilton expense-book.)"From "The Intimate Life of Alexander Hamilton Based Chiefly Upon Original Family Letters" by Allan McLane Hamilton.”
3
oh Mr. Reed--really...need to sound an alarm about the musical Hamilton ? Too many NY high school kids of multi ethnicities seeing talented performers of multi ethnicities employed in a hip hop show that is fantastically successful ? Is there a real & present danger looking back at the post-revolutionary chaos of the 1780's as a democracy was invented from scratch ?
Find another zone for righteous indignation. Hamilton died young.
Find another zone for righteous indignation. Hamilton died young.
Thanks, Mr. Reed....yours was absolutely the most insightful and penetrating look at this production. It means something to many of us out here to have the type of analysis you and others provide.....Where the founding fathers are concerned, you bring cold, hard facts where others are simply content to worship a manufactured version of early American history and an artificial representation of Hamilton himself....Thank you for what you do.
Lin-Manuel Miranda has never claimed that his play is absolute historical fact. It is clearly based upon the actual history, but Miranda is a story-teller, not a historian. He openly admits that he played fast and loose with some of the facts in order to serve the story he was telling.
Case in point - Angelica Schuyler was already married when Hamilton first met the family, and she was the oldest of eleven siblings, including at least three brothers who survived to adulthood. The entire song "Satisfied" is written from the perspective of an unmarried oldest sister in a family of three girls.
Anyone who believes that "Hamilton, An American Musical" is an accurate retelling of American History should still be in elementary school.
That said, I loved the show and the cast album is in steady rotation in my home. But I see it for what it is - a wonderful, magnificent piece of theater. And if it does incite curiosity about the actual history of the founding of the United States, that is a spectacular bonus, the value of which cannot be underestimated.
Case in point - Angelica Schuyler was already married when Hamilton first met the family, and she was the oldest of eleven siblings, including at least three brothers who survived to adulthood. The entire song "Satisfied" is written from the perspective of an unmarried oldest sister in a family of three girls.
Anyone who believes that "Hamilton, An American Musical" is an accurate retelling of American History should still be in elementary school.
That said, I loved the show and the cast album is in steady rotation in my home. But I see it for what it is - a wonderful, magnificent piece of theater. And if it does incite curiosity about the actual history of the founding of the United States, that is a spectacular bonus, the value of which cannot be underestimated.
1
No!! You don't mean that a Broadway musical (with outrageously unpopulist ticket prices) is not a reliable portrayal of real events??!!
1
Vehemently at odds with Rutgers' Prof. Monteiro idea that our founders “really didn’t want to create the country we actually live in today.” What exactly does that mean? That such men did not get things right? That we could know what they actually did want? That they would be disappointed in today's America?
Our "founding fathers", as flawed they might have been and lacking any diversity in their privileged financial and social stature, nonetheless, in 1776, 1787 and 1789, came up with governing ideas and declarations as noble as any produced by mankind. That their stature might make them appear hypocritical and their product lacking some foresight only makes them human. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, it's Articles and Amendments, are aspirations, dreams of a just and safe world to allow us all to pursue happiness. What we critique and take note of today can do nothing to diminish the hopes and dreams inspiring these documents.
To suggest that our forefathers wanted to create something other than what we have today misses the point entirely. Rather, it's what each succeeding generation does with these words. After all, words is all they are.
Our "founding fathers", as flawed they might have been and lacking any diversity in their privileged financial and social stature, nonetheless, in 1776, 1787 and 1789, came up with governing ideas and declarations as noble as any produced by mankind. That their stature might make them appear hypocritical and their product lacking some foresight only makes them human. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, it's Articles and Amendments, are aspirations, dreams of a just and safe world to allow us all to pursue happiness. What we critique and take note of today can do nothing to diminish the hopes and dreams inspiring these documents.
To suggest that our forefathers wanted to create something other than what we have today misses the point entirely. Rather, it's what each succeeding generation does with these words. After all, words is all they are.
3
Anything that can trigger a wave of interest in American history - from folks in elementary school all the way to the nursing home - is absolute magic. And when the magic comes in the form of the finest entertainment to be found, it's a miracle. If we only had more!
3
After a weekend reading about genocide and dispersal of the Delaware Tribe, one can only say "that's entertainment." A Broadway show is a fun substitute for actual study of the facts.
1
History. Trying to recreate what transpired on paper is never ending. The musical is wonderful,being what is,a musical. The one thing any effort at history has is the never ending desire to create Nietzschean leaders/heroes,when at best & worst we are human. The musical is great,& the tale-away from the experience is the diversity of cast members ,which tells the audience that their are no racial or ethnic limitations to greatness & failures. A very profound need in history. The narrative to the play is just a beginning in new interpretations of understanding what happened so long ago. An interesting aside is that Hamilton grasped for the need for "big banks" ,even though the the definition has changed as to size. Banks,people need to be regulated,& even those banks which create too much risk need to be stopped,they serve a purpose. I just hope this is a takeaway for Mr. Sanders,who seems to be at the castle gates with villagers holding torches & farm implements. Hamilton ,as many founding fathers feared a mob mentality,even amongst historians;probably why President Washington saved so much of his papers.
2
Mr.Miranda has successfully taken Mr. Chernow's history, which has delighted many thousands of readers, and transformed into a work of art that will, over time, undoubtedly delight many millions more.
It is a work of genius. In light of this wonderful achievement, the critics seem petty and narrow minded.
It is a work of genius. In light of this wonderful achievement, the critics seem petty and narrow minded.
7
Would Mr. Miranda please take up Thomas Paine for his next musical?
Here's a brilliant guy that's been forgotten...but for the sound bite of history
taught about him in schools: Thomas Paine, author of the pamphlet "Common Sense"-- which rarely appears on any reading assignment, let alone other writings by the man.
Here's a brilliant guy that's been forgotten...but for the sound bite of history
taught about him in schools: Thomas Paine, author of the pamphlet "Common Sense"-- which rarely appears on any reading assignment, let alone other writings by the man.
3
Interesting you bring this up. A few days ago, on the NYT, there was an interview with Lin-Manuel Miranda. He says that "Common Sense" should be required reading for any president. So, you may get your wish.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/books/review/lin-manuel-miranda-by-the...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/books/review/lin-manuel-miranda-by-the...
Interesting!
"Smuggling also helped drive the American industrial revolution. Conveniently forgotten in today’s intellectual-property debates is that early U.S. leaders such as Alexander Hamilton enthusiastically encouraged intellectual piracy and technology smuggling during the country’s initial industrialization process, especially in the textile industry. Such smuggling also depended on the illicit importation of skilled workers (in violation of British emigration laws) to assemble, operate, and improve on the latest machinery."
http://harpers.org/archive/2013/02/smuggler-nation/
Sometimes in those days gone by, in fact most times, low level anti-slavery sentiment reflected the conflict between the plantation interests and the New England merchants. Reading history through a Marxist interpretation (economic as opposed to romantic or name-the-man interpretation) gets us so much closer to the truth. Try Social Forces in American History by A. M. Simons, for instance.
http://harpers.org/archive/2013/02/smuggler-nation/
Sometimes in those days gone by, in fact most times, low level anti-slavery sentiment reflected the conflict between the plantation interests and the New England merchants. Reading history through a Marxist interpretation (economic as opposed to romantic or name-the-man interpretation) gets us so much closer to the truth. Try Social Forces in American History by A. M. Simons, for instance.
I can't sit through a hip/hop/rap song for more than two minutes, but I tried sitting through "Hamilton." I had to walk out, but not just because of the music. The obsequious audience got on my nerves. To each his own.
Whether the musical is historically accurate is another matter. The audience experiences an interpretation of Hamilton. There are other interpretations. Maybe they will be explored by the the fans of the show.
Whether the musical is historically accurate is another matter. The audience experiences an interpretation of Hamilton. There are other interpretations. Maybe they will be explored by the the fans of the show.
Why does garbage become 'chic'? Why are people so dull that 'rap' is an acceptable form of historical presentation? Why is everything reduced to the lowest level? Who would go to see this nonsense?
There is no "lowest level" here. In fact, quite the opposite. I go to theater a lot, usually pretty high-brow stuff and I am not even a fan of musical theater, but Hamilton is absolutely brilliant. You mat decide not to go, but it's your loss. You are going to miss something absolutely wonderful.
1
"Oklahoma" was hardly an accurate portrayal of Oklahoma in 1907. This is entertainment. When a reality "star" leads the Republican primaries, what other evidence do we need that people have difficulty discerning reality from entertainment.
1
does anybody ask if the real anna leonowens was anything like the one in the king and i? was the real macbeth like shakespeare's macbeth?
3
Political correctness has already severely damaged our nation. Hamilton would be outraged.
1
I seriously doubt it. Hamilton's main fear for the future of America was the potential "damage" caused by the ignorant and uninformed.
I saw an cast interview in which Daveed Diggs, who plays Lafayette and Jefferson, said "I never felt particularly American until I did this play."
That's enough for me. It's brilliant.
That's enough for me. It's brilliant.
2
As is expected, the pygmies come out of the woodwork to pare down a genuinely great man. He had flaws but America did become Hamilton's vision of the country, not Jefferson's. When 2008 hit, the mantra became, What Would Hamilton Do? We could still use him--glad the show is a hit!
4
How Timely. I was pondering the need for more story telling about American history. When I was a kid our founders were revered, we didn't talk about them in a 'just human sense', they were more myth than real. I think there is something to be said for myth, especially for the very young, grade school age. It is only as we get older that we have the intellectual capacity (hopefully) to be able to recognize both the remarkable and the not so shinning examples of a persons character and put that in perspective. Hamilton was a human being with all the flaws peculiar his generation as we have in ours. President Bill Clinton comes to mind. A man of his times. Given to greatness but also excess, and weakness in his moral character. We should celebrate the people who have done great things for their country moving us forward, protecting us, calling on us to be better than we are. We need to believe in our place and purpose once again as a nation and a people. We need historical myth as well as reality. Especially young people.
It's a Broadway show. I didn't expect a History lesson when I saw it. It did peak my interest to look into the "Man" Hamilton. I think that's a pretty good goal for any show, to promote some thought and curiosity about what people see. The were many people of color and had contributed to the Rebellion & Revolution that freed our Nation.
Perhaps it's time to accurately do a musical and teach future Americans that it was much more than just a bunch of "rich white guys" that fought for our freedoms.
Perhaps it's time to accurately do a musical and teach future Americans that it was much more than just a bunch of "rich white guys" that fought for our freedoms.
1
"Hamilton" is engaged in what used to be called "Flintstoning." Just as the Flintstones provided not a portrait of prehistory but of the '60s in caveman dress, so, too, does "Hamilton" teach that the past was just like us. That is to say that it is profoundly a-historical. I don't know whether the headline of Ben Brantley's review--"Founding Fathers as Chill Dudes"--was meant as praise, but I don't take it as praise. The past is another country, as someone said, they do things differently there. Not in "Hamilton's" past. Wonderful to see all those people of color in eighteenth-century dress? Yes: but unfortunately that's a pipedream. If we want the present to be different from the past--and in all sorts of ways most of us do--then it's important to know what the past was really like. If Jefferson was black, as we see on stage, then we have to think differently about his affair with Sally Hemings--as we have to think differently about him if he was a black slave-owner (and there were some). The show is fun, so by all means enjoy it. But it's more nearly anti-historical than historical.
4
"Movies are metaphors", so goes the saying, and "Hamilton, although a musical Broadway stage play, addresses the emotional currents and undercurrents of our times -- especially our thoughts about the might-have-beens had the early American Republic risen to its proclaimed ideological purpose and promise.
It didn't, because it couldn't, because the Times they were against it; also our plight today.
It didn't, because it couldn't, because the Times they were against it; also our plight today.
It is a musical, based on one book on the subject.
Those who derive their historical information from Broadway musicals are condemned to be ignorant about history.
Those who derive their historical information from Broadway musicals are condemned to be ignorant about history.
2
This is entertainment after all, and the artists have the absolute right to take liberties for the sake of art. Though what is amusing is that grants are being given for low-income kids to see the show, as opposed to putting Chernow's "Hamilton" on the syllabus, and requiring them to read it, and actually learn something, or is that too much intellectual work for the low income classes?
1
It's too much work for the "educators" who "teach" history.
It really isn't that important, whether or not the Broadway production is precisely true to the history. It is a fantastic, wonderfully exhilarating and uplifting show, unprecedented in its universal appeal and acclaim.
Sour grapes?????
Or envy on the part of historians???
Sour grapes?????
Or envy on the part of historians???
12
I read something interesting recently about the Vikings and slavery that makes me hold the Founding Fathers in a harsher light. The Vikings were raiders and traders. Apparently their biggest trading commodity was slaves. It's likely that some of my own Irish and British and Scandinavian ancestors served in this capacity. But after the Vikings accepted Jesus and become Christians, the Pope made them give up the slave trade because the countries they raided for slaves had been Christianized and Christians cannot own other Christian people.
After that, the Vikings lost their political and economic power.
This makes hold our Christian founders to a higher standard. They had precedent! And they knew that getting right with God and doing the right thing would cost them their close relationship with the god Mammon.
So civilized, so educated, so well-spoken, and the Vikings put them to shame.
After that, the Vikings lost their political and economic power.
This makes hold our Christian founders to a higher standard. They had precedent! And they knew that getting right with God and doing the right thing would cost them their close relationship with the god Mammon.
So civilized, so educated, so well-spoken, and the Vikings put them to shame.
2
Are we pretending that Hamilton, the musical, has become part of American popular culture? There seems to be a whole lot of talk about the shows impact on the way Americans view our past. The bottom line is that the great great majority of Americans cannot come close to affording tickets to this show. Yes, Hamilton was an elitist, but so is charging many hundreds of dollars for ticket and then claiming that it has any relevance for anyone other than the wealthy.
It will get there, eventually, once touring companies get going and it will probably become a part of culture, like certain other plays, movies and books. At the least it's going to be a symbol of how young artists in this age rethought the past.
The most outrageous prices are due to resales - what to do? -but anyone can listen to the original cast album, and get a sense of how it unfolds onstage.
When I was young, I never saw a Broadway play -- but that didn't mean I was unfamiliar with the music and story-lines: Oklahoma, South Pacific, My Fair Lady, West Side Story, for instance. [I was one of those incredible lucky people who saw Hamilton via their lottery]
The most outrageous prices are due to resales - what to do? -but anyone can listen to the original cast album, and get a sense of how it unfolds onstage.
When I was young, I never saw a Broadway play -- but that didn't mean I was unfamiliar with the music and story-lines: Oklahoma, South Pacific, My Fair Lady, West Side Story, for instance. [I was one of those incredible lucky people who saw Hamilton via their lottery]
1
Ms. Gordon-Reed was responding to a critical essay by Lyra D. Monteiro, in the journal The Public Historian, arguing that the show’s multiethnic casting obscures the almost complete lack of identifiable African-American characters, making the country’s founding seem like an all-white affair.
Umm, that is because it was an all-white affair. Save for Crispus Attucks, I cannot name another name of renown or noted achievement. Wishing it was a multi-cultural effort would necessarily obscure the facts. By the same token, name me one white guy of renown involved with Liberia's effort at independence.
Umm, that is because it was an all-white affair. Save for Crispus Attucks, I cannot name another name of renown or noted achievement. Wishing it was a multi-cultural effort would necessarily obscure the facts. By the same token, name me one white guy of renown involved with Liberia's effort at independence.
2
We should definitely look to Broadway musicals for an accurate reflection of history: what about Evita, Springtime for Hitler, the King and I? We need more in the Dancing Dictators genre....Mao Now.
My sister is a history teacher at a high school for the arts. "Hamilton" is a godsend for her -- and I bet for many history teachers out there.
Let the experts nit-pick all they want -- getting kids interested in discussing history -- including how it is portrayed onstage -- isn't a good thing, it's a great thing.
Let the experts nit-pick all they want -- getting kids interested in discussing history -- including how it is portrayed onstage -- isn't a good thing, it's a great thing.
8
"Hamilton" is a stage production, not a treatise. As a musical drama, depth of feeling for the characters and the issues engaged is conveyed as much by poetic lyric and emotive music as by historical fact. (Although given Miranda's virtuosity, the sung-through dialogue streams a non-stop survey of ideas essential to the period.) Subtleties of phrasing and choreographed movement add layers of subjective commentary that reward repeat viewings. Attentive to the wealth of endeavor explored in "Hamilton," one will carry away sublime understanding of human failings on the arc of progressive achievement.
Regarding slavery, there is a crystalline moment of understanding by George Washington that occurs in the final scene. I did not fully take it in until my 3rd time at "Hamilton." As Eliza Hamilton sings that she raised funds for his monument in D.C., the ghost of Washington swells with pride, declaring, "She tells my story!" But in the following lines Eliza attests that she spoke out "against slavery" and calls out to the spirit of Hamilton: "You could have done so much more." In hearing that, Washington lowers his head and steps back from the foreground, an acknowledgment of a serious failure despite a lifetime of learning from grave mistakes and a moral awareness that "history has its eyes on you."
"Hamilton" has many such moments of deep reflection on the grand experiment that is the United States, not yet perfected, even as it celebrates one person's vital contribution.
Regarding slavery, there is a crystalline moment of understanding by George Washington that occurs in the final scene. I did not fully take it in until my 3rd time at "Hamilton." As Eliza Hamilton sings that she raised funds for his monument in D.C., the ghost of Washington swells with pride, declaring, "She tells my story!" But in the following lines Eliza attests that she spoke out "against slavery" and calls out to the spirit of Hamilton: "You could have done so much more." In hearing that, Washington lowers his head and steps back from the foreground, an acknowledgment of a serious failure despite a lifetime of learning from grave mistakes and a moral awareness that "history has its eyes on you."
"Hamilton" has many such moments of deep reflection on the grand experiment that is the United States, not yet perfected, even as it celebrates one person's vital contribution.
4
Histortainment! Not a word but it should be. Clearly the lines between history and entertainment are blurred whenever historical events adapted for entertainment purposes. Takes a certain type of unimaginative person to see these types of productions as anything other than a hybrid of the two entities. I find something like Hamilton easier to appreciate than to criticise for not being something it was never intended to be.
1
Criticizing "Hamilton" for not focusing more on POC players in the revolution downplays the fact that people of color weren't -allowed- to play a role in history -- instead of ignoring the fact that the story of the American Revolution is one dominated by white leaders, we should embrace the power of the story, and the awesome reality of one of the most successful plays in NYC theatre history is one staged by a cast of POCs!
1
No way!
A public figure who is being fictionalized 200+ years later for many reaons including for artistic and economic profit?
How does this happen?
Why doesn't the government put a stop to this?
Say it isn't so!
Faulkner: "The past is never dead. It isn't even past."
A public figure who is being fictionalized 200+ years later for many reaons including for artistic and economic profit?
How does this happen?
Why doesn't the government put a stop to this?
Say it isn't so!
Faulkner: "The past is never dead. It isn't even past."
“This show is the best advertisement for racial diversity in Broadway history and it is sad that it is being attacked on racial grounds,” Mr. Chernow added by email.
I guess mr. chernow's definition of diversity means 'any race but white'. How is it that we celebrate the casting of non-white actors in roles written for white people, but vilify the opposite situation?
I guess mr. chernow's definition of diversity means 'any race but white'. How is it that we celebrate the casting of non-white actors in roles written for white people, but vilify the opposite situation?
1
It might be hard to write a brilliant, original, blockbuster musical that includes very person who was an important part of the American Revolution and evaluates the exact degree of goodness of a historical figure's character. If Ms. Monteiro and Ms. Gordon-Reed want a play about Cato and a completely evaluated Mr. Hamilton, maybe they should team up and write it. In the meantime, is it okay if we celebrate "Hamilton" for the million things it does do perfectly?
3
Wait, you mean Hamilton wasn't Puerto Rican and Washington, Burr, Jefferson, and Madison weren't Black? Cabinet meetings aren't epic rap battles?
History is true until someone writes about it. So let the truth stretch to fit a great story, otherwise I'm spending $$$ listening to a history lecture in college.
History is true until someone writes about it. So let the truth stretch to fit a great story, otherwise I'm spending $$$ listening to a history lecture in college.
3
I take any criticism of Hamilton (the man and the musical) from any Jefferson-related organizations with a grain of salt, especially around the issue of slavery and race. The two were political enemies in their day, and Jefferson's people seem to see the promotion of any Founding Father besides Jefferson as an attack, and are unable to unpack Jefferson's baggage truthfully.
3
As noted, the inquiry is a waste of time. This is entertainment, like a movie or TV show. As sometimes happens, it is discussed in Janus-like fashion: on the one hand, it is history and educational and etc.; on the other hand, liberties were taken for this and that reason, not least of which to serve as the basis for a song-and-dance show. So, try not to embarrass yourself by suggesting that this is your source for all knowledge about Hamilton. I suggest a real book, Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow (2004).
3
There seems to be some conflation going on. Embracing the musical isn't the same thing as embracing the man. Or even Miranda's vision of the man.
4
Let me try this again. If you want a show, if you want to be entertained, go to Broadway. If you want a history lesson there are several truly outstanding universities in New York which will welcome your enrollment -- or even attendance at a single lecture -- on the subject of interest.
1
It's a musical!!
1
"It’s an odd moment for the public to embrace an unabashed elitist who liked big banks, mistrusted the masses and at one point called for a monarchical presidency and a Senate that served for life."
Given what I've witnessed in American politics over the last 16 years, maybe it's time for more mistrust of the masses, as Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, John Adams, and other founders had. We've gone from electing candidates who best knew how to govern based on their experience to candidates we would want to have a beer with. There was a very good reason the Founders limited direct election to members of the House and gave that body 2 year terms: they knew that most voters are easily seduced by the person who promises them everything without telling them how they will achieve their promises (see Trump, Donald; Sanders, Bernie for example). Until the passage of the XVII Amendment, Senators were elected indirectly via each state's legislature, and as we all know, it's the Electoral College vote, not the popular vote, that determines the winner of the White House.
As far as a musical accurately depicting any living figure, give me a break. Musicals are for entertainment, not education. People wanting to know more about Hamilton should read Chernow's outstanding biography, along with his even better biography of George Washington. You learn by reading, not by going to the theater.
Given what I've witnessed in American politics over the last 16 years, maybe it's time for more mistrust of the masses, as Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, John Adams, and other founders had. We've gone from electing candidates who best knew how to govern based on their experience to candidates we would want to have a beer with. There was a very good reason the Founders limited direct election to members of the House and gave that body 2 year terms: they knew that most voters are easily seduced by the person who promises them everything without telling them how they will achieve their promises (see Trump, Donald; Sanders, Bernie for example). Until the passage of the XVII Amendment, Senators were elected indirectly via each state's legislature, and as we all know, it's the Electoral College vote, not the popular vote, that determines the winner of the White House.
As far as a musical accurately depicting any living figure, give me a break. Musicals are for entertainment, not education. People wanting to know more about Hamilton should read Chernow's outstanding biography, along with his even better biography of George Washington. You learn by reading, not by going to the theater.
4
All politics is not only local, but it's also timely. Hamilton was ahead of others in understanding the universality of the new American nation versus remaining just a collection of disjointed colonies. He also mirrored the predominant thinking at the time that slaves were not citizens which meant the Second Amendment stating the individuals right to bear arms certainly did not include them. His fellow founders realizing the difficulty of ratifying a new constitution to replace the flawed Articles of Confederation led them to a compromise allowing slaves to count as 3/5th residents which provided the Southern slave-holding states to accrue more representatives in the House. Not sure all of that can be encompassed in a 21st Century musical, but Miranda's "Hamilton" gives it good try.
1
Next you're going to tell me that Washington never chopped down a cherry tree. It's a theatre piece, not a textbook. Sheesh.
4
HM a musical people might perceive as actual history? Like Disney's Pocahontas? Or the recent TV show "Sons of Liberty" as beefcake history? or the drivel from the creationists who assert man and dinosaur walked the earth together?
2
While I am still reading Chernow"s book, my impression is we should be less quick to judge 18th century woes. I did read the Federalist Papers which should be required before judgments are hurled at Hamilton.
These guys were starting from the British tradition and- regarding democracy - from scratch !
Political wrangling was as intense then as now. Slavery and southern buy in to a united bunch of states was a big deal. As now- the reactionary forces pressed for states rights; post-revolutionary rabble (without much of a big vision for the USA, a budget, trade, realities of nationhood) were illiterate & violent. If Hamilton seemed a bit elite-ist, critics must recognize the whole truth, the broader context for ad hoc strategies.
A strong federal government has been essential for our vibrant democratic capitalism. Hamilton- like many politicians- had personal flaws. ...but his dedication & prescience was astonishing.
The musical, BTW, seemed a bit over produced. I cried at the end, but I am not humming any hiphop tunes..
These guys were starting from the British tradition and- regarding democracy - from scratch !
Political wrangling was as intense then as now. Slavery and southern buy in to a united bunch of states was a big deal. As now- the reactionary forces pressed for states rights; post-revolutionary rabble (without much of a big vision for the USA, a budget, trade, realities of nationhood) were illiterate & violent. If Hamilton seemed a bit elite-ist, critics must recognize the whole truth, the broader context for ad hoc strategies.
A strong federal government has been essential for our vibrant democratic capitalism. Hamilton- like many politicians- had personal flaws. ...but his dedication & prescience was astonishing.
The musical, BTW, seemed a bit over produced. I cried at the end, but I am not humming any hiphop tunes..
2
Monteiro and Gordon-Reed deliver the standard critique of the lazy, the untalented and the ignorant - ignorant of the spectacular challenges that go into creating a work of art: "You should have written the show the way I would have" - except such critics lack the imagination, talent, tenacity and toughness to do so. Reviews and audience feedback sessions that indulge this cat-calling from the incompetent simply expose the critic's narcissism: "a work of art only exists to satisfy my tastes and interests." To Monteiro and Gordon-Reed: it's a free country. Feel free to write your own Hamilton musical, which, we have no doubt, will be the greatest show ever written by a human being. In the meantime...
2
Thomas Jefferson was wrong on slavery but right on Hamilton: "Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but a monarchist bottomed on corruption."
Don't get the musical mix up with the biography (yes, referring to a book). While the musical is based on the best selling biography by Mr. Ron Chernow, the musical is another brilliant way to portray a Founding Father. Take the musical as it is, a grain of salt. If someone wants to know more about Hamilton, read the biography. Sadly, some people sees the musical as an educational piece. Being a museum docent, many often found visitors that reference from TV shows like "Sons of Liberty" and musicals "1776". Remember guys, these are for entertainment. Not necessarily scholarly resource.
While I haven't seen the musical yet, but I found Mr. Miranda's work as an artist. He use modern topics to re-tell the story of Hamilton's life, touches lesser known topics such as his views on slavery, and being an immigrant (an outsider), how his ideas of banking and financing influences modern Wall Street. I think this piece can be a good study on historical interpretation in the contemporary world: entertainment or Informative? As we move further away from the Founding generation, we, continue to re-analyze Hamilton's legacy, rethink history, re-teach history.
While I haven't seen the musical yet, but I found Mr. Miranda's work as an artist. He use modern topics to re-tell the story of Hamilton's life, touches lesser known topics such as his views on slavery, and being an immigrant (an outsider), how his ideas of banking and financing influences modern Wall Street. I think this piece can be a good study on historical interpretation in the contemporary world: entertainment or Informative? As we move further away from the Founding generation, we, continue to re-analyze Hamilton's legacy, rethink history, re-teach history.
There is no way to get all the information in a substantial book, plus more, into a two hour show. While "Hamilton" is based on a book, it is a show, not a history class. The same arguments came up when the plays and movies of "1776" and "Amadeus" were so popular - because they were so convincing, audiences and scholars forgot that they were shows, not history lessons. My hope is that "Hamilton" will inspire people to go out and learn more. But first, I hope they will enjoy the show as entertainment.
3
I wish these scholarly minded critics would critique the actual 'history' being taught in schools today rather than slam a brilliant piece of art. Historicity is not art's role or requirement. Provocation is. Why not point out the inaccuracies in the curriculum of our school's history books instead. Start with Columbus 'discovering' an already populated land.
3
i have thought it odd that teachers are using the show in their classes since it isn't entirely accurate. wouldn't it confuse the kids when the truth contradicts the show?
2
Hmmm, I'm no teacher but let's see where I can go with this. Class Project: Compare and contrast "Hamilton" with what is considered to be history. Bonus assignment: devise a rap based upon history where it differs from the play.
Break up the play into sections and assign each or multiple sections to groups of 3-4 students. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure a dedicated teacher can do better than this.
Break up the play into sections and assign each or multiple sections to groups of 3-4 students. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure a dedicated teacher can do better than this.
2
Alexander Hamilton is the least honored of the Founders’ generation. His vision of a Liberal (Lockean) commercial republic was anathema to the Jeffersonian vision of enlightened elite gentlemen virtuously ruling out of “noblesse oblige”. Washington and Adams true, also held to the rule of virtuous and enlightened men, but were not obsessed with Jefferson’s elevation of a Landed Aristocracy to the ideal.
The Federalists such as Washington and Adams and especially Hamilton recognized Great Britain’s vast power was built upon its banking and commercial systems.
Hamilton’s Bank of America was Jefferson’s *bete noire*. The fear of paper-dealing (stocks and bonds) superseding agriculture as the predominate means of wealth production was part and parcel of the anti-Capitalist Jeffersonians.
As soon as Jefferson took the White House he sicced his friend and fellow anti-Federalist Albert Gallatin to thoroughly audit the Bank of the USA. Appointing Gallatin to Treasury Secretary gave him full access to the Hamiltonian system and the expectation would be the uncovering of a vast scheme of corruption. Impatiently awaiting Gallatin’s report TJ kept up his pressure on his Treasury Secretary. Finally the report was made.
Hamilton who had turned America’s poor credit worthiness in the European capital markets to AAA has created there most perfect system of public finance he, Gallatin could ever imagine!
Proof was in the pudding: America grew into a colossus. Thanks to AH.
The Federalists such as Washington and Adams and especially Hamilton recognized Great Britain’s vast power was built upon its banking and commercial systems.
Hamilton’s Bank of America was Jefferson’s *bete noire*. The fear of paper-dealing (stocks and bonds) superseding agriculture as the predominate means of wealth production was part and parcel of the anti-Capitalist Jeffersonians.
As soon as Jefferson took the White House he sicced his friend and fellow anti-Federalist Albert Gallatin to thoroughly audit the Bank of the USA. Appointing Gallatin to Treasury Secretary gave him full access to the Hamiltonian system and the expectation would be the uncovering of a vast scheme of corruption. Impatiently awaiting Gallatin’s report TJ kept up his pressure on his Treasury Secretary. Finally the report was made.
Hamilton who had turned America’s poor credit worthiness in the European capital markets to AAA has created there most perfect system of public finance he, Gallatin could ever imagine!
Proof was in the pudding: America grew into a colossus. Thanks to AH.
4
Thank you!
Too many generalities here without proof. Saying it doesn't make it so, but you clearly are intoxicated with your words.
Sorry to be a stickler, Ms.Schuessler, but although I agree that Mr. Miranda's lyrics can be dazzling, “line of credit” and “financial diuretic” do not rhyme. I now intend to read past the first paragraph.
1
Quite so: "line of credit" doesn't rhyme with "financial diuretic." It's not a rhyme rhyme. It's a "means of starting a conversation about the nature of rhyming by transgressing the ideological boundaries wherein rhymes are expected to actually rhyme." It is in fact an "off rhyme," which is to say the rhyme of the future.
5
I am a obsessed with the musical! It is a portal into rereading histories and biographies of the people of this era, Hamilton, Jefferson, yes the Hemmings family, John Adams, Washington, the battles in New York, the American Revolution. My daughter commented that back then being young and smart was considered so much more of a valuable achievement, what Hamilton did as a young man was astounding, whether or not he was more or less liberal than Jefferson. Also, so few people (then or now) understand economics, would we even have a country today if Washington and Hamilton didn't understand business and finance as well as they understood military strategy? I don't think, so. Jefferson died in debt. What a gift to approach this history with fresh eyes!
1
Hamilton was a VILLAIN as any student of even high school history would know. Just read what he had to say about his fellow Americans in The Federalist Papers and how he slandered in the most vile manner John Adams, who was the single greatest protagonist in gaining American independence. "Hamilton" on Broadway has NOTHING to do with history and anyone who goes to Broadway expecting a history lesson is the same person who visits Epcot and thinks they've traveled to Paris when they visit the France Pavilion.
4
it doesn't need a howard zinn to bring a grin
when historicals chin...
the stuff they write tidies up the blight
(on red, brown, yellow, black and ethnic hyphenate)
of white...
the show's a show with clues of where to go
not proof of where we've been...
check that, maybe it's time for some howard zinn.
when historicals chin...
the stuff they write tidies up the blight
(on red, brown, yellow, black and ethnic hyphenate)
of white...
the show's a show with clues of where to go
not proof of where we've been...
check that, maybe it's time for some howard zinn.
C'mon, folks! How many details should we cram into one musical?
1
A playwright is not meant to be an historian, but history can be a vehicle for great stories that tell deep truths - ask Shakespeare. Look to our historians for factual information - but look to our artists for deeper, more spiritual truths.
4
Wait, so I haven't seen the play, you mean to tell me that Alexander Hamilton, that supremely arrogant, bank loving, Whiskey Rebellion crushing, Alien & Sedition Act supporting, common people despising, monarchist is the HERO of "Hamilton"?
3
Well Hamilton has finally arrived due to his spin on Broadway. Google is now marking its calendars with Hamilton's birthday.
American history is mostly moral stories and myth. These men came out of a world very unlike ours and they were struggling with the notion of a government without a king - Adams thought when the country matured we would naturally have a knig. Few today realize that the US Constitution was intended to limit democracy and protect against the popular democracy of the states where the middling sort (not the elites) were getting elected. Of course today some candidates have had to face the fact that you can win the popular vote and not win either a nomination or the presidential election.
American history is mostly moral stories and myth. These men came out of a world very unlike ours and they were struggling with the notion of a government without a king - Adams thought when the country matured we would naturally have a knig. Few today realize that the US Constitution was intended to limit democracy and protect against the popular democracy of the states where the middling sort (not the elites) were getting elected. Of course today some candidates have had to face the fact that you can win the popular vote and not win either a nomination or the presidential election.
Are there any current political leaders, of either party, worthy of a musical? Or even being remembered 200 plus years from now?
1
Yup. Obama. And hopefully Hillary, if she wins.
While the historic value of Hamilton may be as fuzzy as the chin of the protagonist (Al Hamilton remains clean-shaven in all of his portraits), I am amazed that its accuracy is an issue in a culture that worships at the feet of Jefferson, a wordsmith whose morality was so bankrupt he attempted to manipulate the Louisiana Purchase into a mechanism for increasing the political power of slaveholders.
What is interesting (but not surprising-- not for a long time now) is the alienation of the US university "professoriat" from the history of this country, and their hostility to it. Anything that places any of it in a positive light is intolerable to them.
Hamilton was 'not in tune with progressive contemporary values'? That got a horse-laugh from me. How could he have been? He lived 200 years ago; remember, Prof?
Hamilton was 'not in tune with progressive contemporary values'? That got a horse-laugh from me. How could he have been? He lived 200 years ago; remember, Prof?
6
All I have to say is that I left the theater dazzled -- excited by our rich history, inspired by America's diversity and potentialities, proud to be an American, thrilled more than ever to be a New Yorker! Oh, and I felt I had glimpsed something of our country's future and the future of the American musical, to boot. Historians must always. and one imagines, endlessly, offer their well-researched correctives. We need them. But please -- a little perspective!
1
What is it about the term "historical fiction" is so hard to swallow?
The show was not created to make you or me happy, but to entertain audiences and make money. It is succeeding at both, and I hope it is also rousing people of all ages and ethnics to do some real historical research.
The show was not created to make you or me happy, but to entertain audiences and make money. It is succeeding at both, and I hope it is also rousing people of all ages and ethnics to do some real historical research.
2
Poetic license is one thing. Perversion of the truth is quite another.
Chernow's defense of the stage play is merely the opinion of a theatregoer--actually a paid theatregoer. His opinion thus comes as no surprise and is tainted by his consultation fee.
Chernow's defense of the stage play is merely the opinion of a theatregoer--actually a paid theatregoer. His opinion thus comes as no surprise and is tainted by his consultation fee.
1
I'm not sure it would help people understand the complications that some historians want to bring out, but it would be lovely if some of the audience for the show also found their way to Hamilton's house "The Grange" on 141st Street in Manhattan. It is a National Park Service site.
1
Let's not forget that this is a Broadway play and not meant to be a scholarly accurate picture of Hamilton or anyone else. The playwright has license to make it whatever he wants.
2
If one wants to learn history, one has to read it. Musicals are for entertainment, not enlightenment.
2
Can we STOP this constant revision of our history and of the great people that came before us? I mean, we judge men and women that lived 200 years ago with our current values, which is absurd! I can assure you most of the view of our grandparents, today, would seem abhorrent and obscene, but should we then erase them from our family albums, and memories? No. Morality and ethics are constantly changing, and so we should be a little more gentle in how we judge those that came before us, specially when it is evident they tried so hard to be the best they could be.
2
This could be best summed up as "Librettos were taken with this history."
1
With politicians rewriting history, why not a Broadway Play that rewrites history for entertainment's sake. At least a night of Broadway entertainment can't increase the national debt, lacks regime change, won't increase our taxes, and best of all has no collateral murders (inside the theatre).
Are we searching for truth, and criticizing entertainment? Is this another in the litany of demeaning the Founding Fathers?
Why can't we just be proud of what others have done. Yes, we and they have flaws. Doesn't everyone?
When I was a youngster there was a lot of pride in our country, and in our leaders. We knew they weren't perfect, but the good outweighed the flaws.
I reference FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Marshall, Acheson.
Why can't we just be proud of what others have done. Yes, we and they have flaws. Doesn't everyone?
When I was a youngster there was a lot of pride in our country, and in our leaders. We knew they weren't perfect, but the good outweighed the flaws.
I reference FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Marshall, Acheson.
2
1. In 2 to 3 hours you can not "explain it all".
2. There is a delicate balance between historivsl accuracy and dramatic license.
3. No matter what creative teams does, not everyone will be pleased.
4. It is a Broadway Musical, not a Graduate History Course. Chill people!
2. There is a delicate balance between historivsl accuracy and dramatic license.
3. No matter what creative teams does, not everyone will be pleased.
4. It is a Broadway Musical, not a Graduate History Course. Chill people!
3
I loved seeing Hamilton. It sparked an interest in reading more about him, his family, and our other founding fathers.
When has a Broadway musical or biographical movie not taken artistic licence in bringing us these stories? Stand back, historians. Every minutiae cannot possibly be put in a show already running nearly 3 hours.
Remember EVITA on stage in 1979? I'd not heard of her before that concept album, and Broadway show. But, wow, did she kick up a flurry of interest! There were magazines and books and TV movies made about this historical person. I'd seen the original production of that show, and gobbled up books about Eva Peron.
When a show encourages us to delve deeper into actual history, it's a win-win all around.
When has a Broadway musical or biographical movie not taken artistic licence in bringing us these stories? Stand back, historians. Every minutiae cannot possibly be put in a show already running nearly 3 hours.
Remember EVITA on stage in 1979? I'd not heard of her before that concept album, and Broadway show. But, wow, did she kick up a flurry of interest! There were magazines and books and TV movies made about this historical person. I'd seen the original production of that show, and gobbled up books about Eva Peron.
When a show encourages us to delve deeper into actual history, it's a win-win all around.
4
Any portrayal of a Founding Father that does not show him to be either a vile racist, sexist, elitist, demagogue, crook, philanderer, or crass opportunist (or all of the above!) will offend somebodies delicate sensibilities. As though anything less than a trial in absentia must as a matter of course be some naive "I-cannot-tell-a-lie" hagiography.
2
My goodness, this is a musical. But, I forgot that we live in an era in which former Founders, former heroes , former statesmen must be torn down, even vilified. Washington, Lincoln , Jefferson, et.al. have all had their legacies "corrected" . For what purpose? No adult who went beyond 8th grade thinks that any of these people was a saint. None of us is.
Yet, these days being critical , being cynical is somehow equated with being intelligent. This is political correctness run amok, and I see little good in it.
Yet, these days being critical , being cynical is somehow equated with being intelligent. This is political correctness run amok, and I see little good in it.
2
History is history for a reason: It happened in the past.
Why is it necessary to require that it must conform to what happens now?
Slavery was formally abolished in Mew York in 1788 and by practice in 1785.
He didn't arrive in New York until 1772 and was married after slavery was abolished.
Next let's go after Lincoln because Mary Todd came from slave holders.
Let's view events and persons in their time and place otherwise we become let the old Soviet Union where history must ne revised to support the flavor of the day.
Why is it necessary to require that it must conform to what happens now?
Slavery was formally abolished in Mew York in 1788 and by practice in 1785.
He didn't arrive in New York until 1772 and was married after slavery was abolished.
Next let's go after Lincoln because Mary Todd came from slave holders.
Let's view events and persons in their time and place otherwise we become let the old Soviet Union where history must ne revised to support the flavor of the day.
1
I'd add that it takes no particular moral courage to denounce slavery, as many commenters here do, 150 years after the fact. (There were Northerners who were as racist as any Southerner, and Southerners who hated the system, which some predicted even at the time was unsustainable even if there hadn't been a war.) Most entertainment versions of history tell us what we want to hear, particularly if it reflects us in the most flattering light.
Another comment elsewhere says the musical is ok, as long as the 'truth' is available through books. But if you're looking for 'THE truth,' whether you get it from books or from a musical, you're already getting off on the wrong foot.
Another comment elsewhere says the musical is ok, as long as the 'truth' is available through books. But if you're looking for 'THE truth,' whether you get it from books or from a musical, you're already getting off on the wrong foot.
Do people also take The Sound of Music as a historically accurate representation of the lead up to WWII?
3
It is an artistic interpretation of history like the romanticized versions of medieval times like Camelot and King Arthur's Court. Most Presidential interpretations are embellished, but we know that reality dictates that Hoover did not do enough during the Great Depression and FDR might have done too much!
I don't understand why people are getting so defensive about this. As you all point out "Hamilton" is a Broadway Musical and not necessarily bound to strictly adhere to the facts. However, the facts and their interpretation are the province of historians and it is totally appropriate that they should encourage a discussion of the historical accuracy of a piece of pop history. Pop history creates myths and once those myths take root it can take generations to dislodge them that's why it's important when history becomes a topic of popular discussion that people know the difference between the truth and the myth. Nobody is saying that "Hamilton" isn't worthwhile and that you shouldn't enjoy it. They're just saying that you should also know the truth.
1
Let's hope they don't do a musical about Lincoln, the history critics would tear it to pieces. Who cares if "Hamilton" is accurate? If you want accuracy, read his biography.
4
In his seminal work, Alexander Hamilton: A Biography, Professor Forrest McDonald wrote that one needs deep understanding of finance and law to appreciate Hamilton's vast contributions to the United States. As someone who earned a undergraduate degree in history, who then went on to career in bond trading, earned an M.B.A., and later a J.D., I concur with Professor McDonald, and believe that historians are in many ways poorly equipped to understand the scope of Hamilton's achievements.
Indeed, it is rather shocking to find professional historians quoted as describing Hamilton as an "elitist," citing as evidence the same simplistic arguments launched by Jefferson and his associates during and after Hamilton's lifetime. One also wonders what magic words Ms. Gordon-Reed would have demanded Hamilton say to be deemed an "ardent lifelong abolitionist" given his abolitionist views expressed before and during the Constitutional Convention.
Indeed, it is rather shocking to find professional historians quoted as describing Hamilton as an "elitist," citing as evidence the same simplistic arguments launched by Jefferson and his associates during and after Hamilton's lifetime. One also wonders what magic words Ms. Gordon-Reed would have demanded Hamilton say to be deemed an "ardent lifelong abolitionist" given his abolitionist views expressed before and during the Constitutional Convention.
3
Some people view the past as a record of failure, a list of sins and crimes - some view it as an imperfect but steady march towards greater freedom, equality, and justice.
The present that some are so smug about exists because of the past. 100,000 years of human history - filled with violence, ignorance, murder, rape, war, injustice and slavery - and within a few hundred years - a virtual nanosecond - and the civilised world has ended slavery, embraced women's right, shunned racism - these things happened because of the enlightenment - because of civilisation. If you want to reject the past - you will reject the foundation that all the good of the present sits upon.
The present that some are so smug about exists because of the past. 100,000 years of human history - filled with violence, ignorance, murder, rape, war, injustice and slavery - and within a few hundred years - a virtual nanosecond - and the civilised world has ended slavery, embraced women's right, shunned racism - these things happened because of the enlightenment - because of civilisation. If you want to reject the past - you will reject the foundation that all the good of the present sits upon.
2
What!!? A Broadway musical doesn't perfectly reflect history???? The man portrayed wasn't perfect???? Next you'll be saying that our founding fathers weren't gods.
3
Hamilton lived at a time of his absolute right way, and their absolute wrong way. In the end, Jefferson had more henchmen to out duel him.
Who knows what he would have done had Burr not executed him on the hill overlooking the Hudson, in Weehawken?
Kind of like the great "what if" assination debates about Lincoln, JFK, RFK, MLK...
It's great if an entetaining play, about one of the most important - and most overlooked - founding fathers, also increases the debate about history.
Who knows what he would have done had Burr not executed him on the hill overlooking the Hudson, in Weehawken?
Kind of like the great "what if" assination debates about Lincoln, JFK, RFK, MLK...
It's great if an entetaining play, about one of the most important - and most overlooked - founding fathers, also increases the debate about history.
1
If this is the zeitgeist then let's not discriminate: apply the same microscope to MLK.
3
It's been several times -- most recently in "Selma." The man wasn't a saint -- he was a man.
It is the job of historians to attempt to correct the representation of historical figures that appear in popular entertainment. "Hamilton" the musical reflects its source material -- Mr. Chernow's glowing biography. Both have effectively begun a discussion about this important founder.
Of course any musical whitewashes it's subject matter. This musical, however, has turned its source of inspiration, Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton, into a best seller. The people who see the musical, and the people who would like to see the musical, are reading the biography and getting to know what Hamilton was really like. Chernow's other great biography of a founding father, Washington, also contains a considerable amount of information about Hamilton's dealing with Washington over twenty years' time, and not all of it is flattering. But if the musical is the way you came by the biography and a thirst for more knowledge about AH, more power to it. Chernow makes sure we know that Hamilton was a person who lived and breathed with passion, who made incredible contributions to our country and who also made his share of mistakes in judgment and action. The musical opens the door to the man.
1
I'm unable to resist saying that I hated "Hamilton" from start to finish, for many reasons, when I saw it on Broadway a few months ago (and, yes, I appear to be the only person on the planet who feels that way) -- but as someone who graduated with a degree in American History, I must also say that if this musical inspires people to actually learn something about our country's beginnings, then more power to Lin-Manuel Miranda et al.
2
Sometimes the New York Times doesn't know when to leave well enough alone.
Said another way, this article reminds me of the parent who confronts a child that brings home a report card with four A's and one B and all the parent wants to talk about is the B.
Said another way, this article reminds me of the parent who confronts a child that brings home a report card with four A's and one B and all the parent wants to talk about is the B.
4
Sounds like a lot of these folks have not been in the room where it happens.
It's a piece of art, and not intended to trace Hamilton's life precisely. I suspect one could find the same complaint throughout the history of biographical shows and plays.
It's a piece of art, and not intended to trace Hamilton's life precisely. I suspect one could find the same complaint throughout the history of biographical shows and plays.
1
I frankly find this type of criticism to be absurd. No one is saying that this is "how it was;" rather it is a dramatization of one man's (Miranda's) view of another man's research (Chernow's) or another man (Hamilton).
The benefits (an art work, more interest by children in learning about history, etc.) far outweigh any historical inaccuracies.
The benefits (an art work, more interest by children in learning about history, etc.) far outweigh any historical inaccuracies.
3
When, after becoming obsessed with this musical, my 12 year old asked me to buy him a copy of Chernow's biography of Hamilton and has now immersed himself in it, any debates about whether a Broadway show gets Hamilton "right" (a curious notion from a historians point of view), seem pretty meaningless to me. If it's got my kid excited about history, where over time he can learn the nuances and distortions, then please, please, bring on more problematic "history" shows with great music!
6
Some presumably "Applaud" the "multiethnic" cast. Would they applaud a broadway show about the civil rights movement, or a show about the Selma march, featuring a cast of whites, with perhaps Kevin Spacey playing King, and maybe Richard Gere playing Jesse Jackson, etc.?
I doubt it. Like, love or hate Hamilton the show, its multiethnic cast is a desecration of history. Were the tables turned and revered black leaders played by whites, there would be a boycott, angry lectures from Sharpton and Lee, statements of "conscience" from the NAACP, etc.
The play is a joke, a fraud and a grand deception, albeit entertaining.
I doubt it. Like, love or hate Hamilton the show, its multiethnic cast is a desecration of history. Were the tables turned and revered black leaders played by whites, there would be a boycott, angry lectures from Sharpton and Lee, statements of "conscience" from the NAACP, etc.
The play is a joke, a fraud and a grand deception, albeit entertaining.
Instead of debating the merits of entertainment, New York City's historians need to at long last confront New York City's "draft riots." Too often, notably in the NY TImes, we hear the refrain: "The poor Irish rioted, refusing fight to free poor blacks." What really happened was the city's commercial interests led by August Belmont and Fernando Wood, neither of whom were Irish, incited discontent. The Lincoln administration was incompetent in holding a draft while NYC's militia, an immense self-defense force, had been sent to Pennsylvania to help dealt with the Gettysburg crisis. New York elites response to the hold thing (the draft and Gettysburg) was to organize regattas and go boating. New York wasn't ever a city that intended to secede with the South. It sent off 200,000 soldiers and sailors to fight for the Union, most immigrants, who won 200+ Medals of Honor. When exactly does 19th century Nativism end.
Like all great art, in all forms, "Hamilton" provokes thought, discussion, analysis, appreciation and worth. That's quite an accomplishment for Lin Manuel Miranda and the entire cast and production crew behind the show. As Marshall McLuhan once said, "the medium is the message."
2
Tiresome revisionism that we now have to pander to the over-entitled minorities, who want us not to use an airbrush, but spraypaint their gang tags all over history...I know this comment will probably not make it past the self-righteous censors of political correctness who insist on making this paper one of their Safe Spaces but here goes.
5
Funny!, I hope these guys do a musical on " The Kingdom of Jones" with a techno sound track soon. I'd by the DVD of that.
Reading the comments, I'm struck, and dismayed, by how many smugly proclaim, 'oh come on, no one expects a Broadway musical to be entirely accurate history. This is entertainment.'
A lot of people my age think Oliver Stone's 'JFK' is accurate history, just as many people of my mother's generation assumed 'Gone With the Wind' was essentially a documentary. Not to mention Mel Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' or Robert Bolt's 'A Man for All Seasons'. People also think that crime labs can actually do all the high-tech wonders they see on 'CSI'. Or any number of other distortions and fictions taken literally because they are compellingly presented and tell us what we expect.
The fact, uncomfortable as it is, is that most people are intellectually lazy. The colour-blind casting and anachronistic score and dialogue are easily accepted as conventions of a musical comedy, but the *story* sticks as being a basically accurate and complete portrayal of the participants and their times. Read books? Why? We already saw the show.
A lot of people my age think Oliver Stone's 'JFK' is accurate history, just as many people of my mother's generation assumed 'Gone With the Wind' was essentially a documentary. Not to mention Mel Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' or Robert Bolt's 'A Man for All Seasons'. People also think that crime labs can actually do all the high-tech wonders they see on 'CSI'. Or any number of other distortions and fictions taken literally because they are compellingly presented and tell us what we expect.
The fact, uncomfortable as it is, is that most people are intellectually lazy. The colour-blind casting and anachronistic score and dialogue are easily accepted as conventions of a musical comedy, but the *story* sticks as being a basically accurate and complete portrayal of the participants and their times. Read books? Why? We already saw the show.
"Alexander Hamilton ... the less attractive aspects of his politics"?
So the REAL historical Hamilton from the 18th century is "less attractive" than a 21st century cartoon version for a semi-farcical song-and-dance stage production that "over-glorifies the man"?
The "real" Hamilton merely set up the Federal Reserve system, at the behest of none other than Washington, both of whom realized that the semi-bankrupt Articles system was on the verge of tottering and failing. I'd say that was "glory" enough for one person! And not to mention serving in the army during the Revolution, etc, etc...
Surely that service to the nation compares favorably with jigging on a stage and singing a few songs?
So the REAL historical Hamilton from the 18th century is "less attractive" than a 21st century cartoon version for a semi-farcical song-and-dance stage production that "over-glorifies the man"?
The "real" Hamilton merely set up the Federal Reserve system, at the behest of none other than Washington, both of whom realized that the semi-bankrupt Articles system was on the verge of tottering and failing. I'd say that was "glory" enough for one person! And not to mention serving in the army during the Revolution, etc, etc...
Surely that service to the nation compares favorably with jigging on a stage and singing a few songs?
2
The Federal Reserve System wasn't setup until 1913.
1
No matter how one portrays history through a Broadway play or any form of media its gets criticized from all angles. Either your attacked for having an 'agenda', whitewashing, or simply being a revisionist. I give credit for using a non white cast to make it accessible to an audience who may not normally attend a Broadway play. Also using a hip hop/ r&b elements interwoven into the musical score. Also subtle reminder that our nation's wealth, prestige, and 'freedom' was built upon the backs of slaves and a slave economy. During that era slavery was the epitome of capitalism where the 1% reap profits off the 99% who do the work something that even resonates today.
1
This reminds me of last year when the movie "Boyhood" was being universally praised by critics and embraced by audiences because of its unique 12-year-long filming schedule that really showed the actors growing older as they were filmed year after year. Then, out of nowhere, a "Christian" mom who worked for an obscure blog wrote the first negative review and it set off a firestorm. She came under fire for not loving something that was enthralling the masses.
For months now, I've had a feeling that the universally-adored "Hamilton" would eventually come across a detractor who would write something in an effort to take away its perfect 10 rating. Now, this has happened. Dear God!
Hamilton', just like "Boyhood" will survive. The criticism might give audiences another lens through which they watch this tremendously entertaining show. Personally, I haven't seen it yet, but I listen to the cast album almost every day and I always come away knowing that the character of Hamilton is a deeply flawed man. I also think this is a piece of entertainment that was designed around a specific autobiography. It's a show that's meant to pick and choose moments from Hamilton's life that work well being set to song and dance. I honestly don't think it was designed to replace real history books or real history teachers. In fact, I believe it's making students more interested in delving into history books they had been dreading because they seem so boring.
For months now, I've had a feeling that the universally-adored "Hamilton" would eventually come across a detractor who would write something in an effort to take away its perfect 10 rating. Now, this has happened. Dear God!
Hamilton', just like "Boyhood" will survive. The criticism might give audiences another lens through which they watch this tremendously entertaining show. Personally, I haven't seen it yet, but I listen to the cast album almost every day and I always come away knowing that the character of Hamilton is a deeply flawed man. I also think this is a piece of entertainment that was designed around a specific autobiography. It's a show that's meant to pick and choose moments from Hamilton's life that work well being set to song and dance. I honestly don't think it was designed to replace real history books or real history teachers. In fact, I believe it's making students more interested in delving into history books they had been dreading because they seem so boring.
2
Given the fact that the play is a Broadway musical, what is remarkable is how accurate it is...of course liberties are taken.
32
Agreed-- there are inaccuracies -it's a fictional work. The spirit it portrays of the time period and the man have spurred many fans seek more info for themselves. How wonderful is that !?!
After you finish a Hamilton bio, try 'War of Two' by John Sedgwick. The book chronicles the lives of Hamilton and Aaron Burr showing the similarities and differences that spawned a tragic rivalry. If you think politics is dirty today - read a little about the American press in the late 18th and early 19th century. Sex, lies, innuendo, and dueling! Imagine The Donald insulting Mrs. Cruz and the Senator challenging Trump to an affair of honor to defend her honor?
I sense the JDL at work--the Jefferson Defense League. We live in Hamilton's America and are lucky that we do. Not many yeoman farmers with slaves these days. On the fundamental moral issue of his age, Hamilton got it right and Jefferson got it wrong.
As noted by Hamilton.."That Americans are entitled to freedom is incontestable on every rational principle. All men have one common original: they participate in one common nature, and consequently have one common right. No reason can be assigned why one man should exercise any power or preeminence over his fellow-creatures more than another; unless they have voluntarily vested him with it.'
As noted by Hamilton.."That Americans are entitled to freedom is incontestable on every rational principle. All men have one common original: they participate in one common nature, and consequently have one common right. No reason can be assigned why one man should exercise any power or preeminence over his fellow-creatures more than another; unless they have voluntarily vested him with it.'
3
The notion that Hmilton is presenting a racist view of history is absurd on its face, as I pointed out last week in the Federalist. http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/07/hamilton-haters-are-why-we-cant-have...
What's more American than selective memory? Not only is it the basis for art, but for entire presidential campaigns.
4
I haven't seen Hamilton and probably won't see it until it goes on sale at the TKTS booth many years from now.
Poor widdle scholarly historians. I think their problem is mostly that Miranda doesn't have multiple degrees from Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Stamford and that makes him illegitimate -- popular while the scholars are widely ignored. And I wonder how many of those "scholars" have actually seen the theatrical event they denigrate.
The "scholars" would do better trying to stamp out the about G. Washington/cherry tree legend .
Poor widdle scholarly historians. I think their problem is mostly that Miranda doesn't have multiple degrees from Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Stamford and that makes him illegitimate -- popular while the scholars are widely ignored. And I wonder how many of those "scholars" have actually seen the theatrical event they denigrate.
The "scholars" would do better trying to stamp out the about G. Washington/cherry tree legend .
Remember the joke in "A Thousand Clowns" that had Murray and Nick "imitating" Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson (the joke being, of course, that no one could possibly know what they sounded like)? Well, thanks to Broadway, Hamilton will live on forever as a Puerto Rican rapper. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as the saying goes.
As long as color-blind casting works every which way. I look forward one day to an Asian Celie in "The Color Purple." Dare I even say "Caucasian"?
As long as color-blind casting works every which way. I look forward one day to an Asian Celie in "The Color Purple." Dare I even say "Caucasian"?
2
It should be noted that the play has put Ron Chernow's hefty biography back on the best seller list, giving those who take up the challenge (I'm on page 543 and still enthralled) a much more complete and nuanced picture of Hamilton. And it encourages enthusiasts to further explore an extraordinary and extraordinarily complicated time in our history. The play is not the whole story and could never have been the whole story.
3
Hamilton would have been only 20 in 1775, so I wonder how accurate the dating of the engraving can be.
What historians should really be worried about is not an entertaining Broadway musical, but the ongoing attempts (and successes) by the Right Wing to rewrite history books used in schools so that the books reflect the Right's lies and delusions.
Books used in schools must describe and expound on the fact-based-reality, not the imaginary "history" of Right Wing Christian zealots.
Books used in schools must describe and expound on the fact-based-reality, not the imaginary "history" of Right Wing Christian zealots.
2
Looking at history through modern eyes can not possibly reflect the egalitarian sensibility of those times. The Hamilton show is just that, entertainment for today.
Scanning briefly through the "Times Pick" posts which point out that "Hamilton," as "entertainment," can play a bit last and loose with historical accuracy, I can't help wondering if any of the writers were the ones who made such an uproar over Jonathan Pryce as the Engineer in the original "Miss Saigon," or are outraged by the idea of Joseph Fiennes playing Michael Jackson in an upcoming biopic.
1
Do you mean "air-brushed" in the same way that pro-slavery (and slave owning) Presidents Washington and Jefferson have been "retouched" in our national cultural psyche?... Hello, it's a Broadway play! As a life-long educator, I think this is an excellent vehicle to engage the public, and students in particular, to better understand and appreciate history; and the connections and insight it offers to the present and future Americans.
4
The mere fact that Jefferson owned slaves has been permitted to overshadow both all his other contributions to our society and the fact that he was intensely conflicted and guilt-ridden over slavery. Of course, people who themselves are very simple are incapable of grappling with complexity and must reduce everything and everyone to 'four legs good, two legs bad'.
The best thing you can say for Hamilton is that he was one of Washington's favorites, very much unlike jefferson.
1
The hype and lack of criticism feels patronizing to me. As in wealthy white-guilty liberals tripping over themselves to overhype a Broadway show full of brown people...
4
Truly, the show is brilliant, highly entertaining, and celebrates a diverse cast. On those three things alone, "Hamilton" deserves its place in theater history. My quibbles with the show have to do with the portrayal of the characters. Hamilton is obviously no perfect human being, and yet, he ends up being glorified because/in spite of/by the very nature of his being human. Yet other characters with flaws are mocked throughout. The other criticism I have is that for most of the show the women (oh, yeah, remember them?) are given a stock story. At the end of the show, however, there's this "omigosh, we gotta remember the ladies" moment when Eliza's history is rattled through. I am not sure these criticisms should overpower the theatrical achievement; all fiction distorts something or other. I would hope, though, that other historians would have chimed in by now to give some perspective. I myself would like to see if my initial impression of the show is correct, but...I'd have to get a ticket for that!!!
2
Am I the only one impressed that Lin-Manuel Miranda reads big, fat history books on vacation?
15
It's historical the way Schiller's plays are historical: a particular historical setting is used as a context for a flawed, emotionally conflicted hero. (Throw in a romantic subplot that emphasizes agonizing moral choices.) How I would love it if LMM were ever to take on Schiller's Wallenstein....heck, the first of the 3 pieces in Wallenstein is, in essence, a rap battle.
I read the Chernow biography prior to seeing the musical, and found the musical to be both faithful to the biography and, based on other works about the period, including that of historician Gordon Wood, historically accurate. That Hamilton created American banking system does not make him a conservative, As both the book and musical point out, his view that American's future was to be built on trade and manufacturing was correct - whereas Jefferson's agrarian vision was wrong. Further, Hamilton was an abolitionist, while Jefferson and Madison, great champions of democracy, lived on the labor of slaves.
Jeffersonian populism was based in a states' rights, anti-Federalist ideology, aimed preserving the power of the larger states and specifically, the slave owning South. Hamilton was no monarchist; he abandoned the argument for a hereditary presidency after one, 6-hour speech at the Constituional Comvention. Rather, he advocated a strong central government that would force states to pay a fair share of taxes and create a national bank, customs bureau and military. A strong central government would weaken the South- why Jefferson opposed Hamiltons plan.
Moreover, Hamilton wrote that African-Americans were as intelligent and capable as whites, whereas Jefferson believed blacks to be generically inferior. Score another point for Hamilton.
Miranda and Chernow have revised a popular view of Hamilton that, clearly, was wrong. Hamilton is a brilliant show and a teaching tool.
Jeffersonian populism was based in a states' rights, anti-Federalist ideology, aimed preserving the power of the larger states and specifically, the slave owning South. Hamilton was no monarchist; he abandoned the argument for a hereditary presidency after one, 6-hour speech at the Constituional Comvention. Rather, he advocated a strong central government that would force states to pay a fair share of taxes and create a national bank, customs bureau and military. A strong central government would weaken the South- why Jefferson opposed Hamiltons plan.
Moreover, Hamilton wrote that African-Americans were as intelligent and capable as whites, whereas Jefferson believed blacks to be generically inferior. Score another point for Hamilton.
Miranda and Chernow have revised a popular view of Hamilton that, clearly, was wrong. Hamilton is a brilliant show and a teaching tool.
15
The criticism of the show itself is silly, but also rather sad because of the narrow view of history some of these academics hold.
4
Enough with the Hamilton nonsense. I saw the play at the Public Theater last year and it's good entertainment. Nothing more. Nowhere as deep or thoughtful as Les Miserable, nor as memorable. Therefore, my advice is take it for what it is: light entertainment. And most definitely not as revolutionary as 1776 actually was.
2
As tourists from all over the country head back home to their home states where Donald Trump is leading, it doesn't hurt to take home a thoughtful message about race, even if subject to some poetic license.
1
To paraphrase Alfred Hitchcock, "It's only a musical."
1
OH my gosh! "Hamilton" is a Broadway musical not a Ph.D. dissertation with footnotes. All historical figures are subject to varying assessments by different historians. The genius of "Hamiton" is that it gives life and personality to the Founding Fathers while generating renewed interest in the creation of our democracy. There would not even be an article in the April 2016 NY Times but for this musical.
1
Of course everything in Hamilton is strictly based in historical fact, especially given the author's loving attention to detail by quoting 18th century rap artists.
3
The musical is far more interesting for what it says about the era we live in, which is always the case even with the most meticulously researched history. Not for nothing to Mr. Miranda debut the killer opening number at the White House. And not for nothing has the president seen the show twice and invited the cast to the White House last month. And not for nothing has Michelle Obama called it the greatest piece of art she has ever seen.
The story of the islander-outsider of modest means, big dreams, keen mind and political if not romantic integrity in the world of scoundrels is also a description of Obama's Dreams of my Father.
Clearly this is Obama's "Camelot" and it is a far better fit than the after the fact association Jackie Kennedy tried to bestow on the legacy of her husband.
I don't see the historical figure in "Hamilton," I see poetic license used to create an aesthetic choice that links Miranda, Obama, the Hamilton cast and the 20,000 New York City school-children in a common story.
And isn't interpretation the beginning of the story and not its end?
The story of the islander-outsider of modest means, big dreams, keen mind and political if not romantic integrity in the world of scoundrels is also a description of Obama's Dreams of my Father.
Clearly this is Obama's "Camelot" and it is a far better fit than the after the fact association Jackie Kennedy tried to bestow on the legacy of her husband.
I don't see the historical figure in "Hamilton," I see poetic license used to create an aesthetic choice that links Miranda, Obama, the Hamilton cast and the 20,000 New York City school-children in a common story.
And isn't interpretation the beginning of the story and not its end?
3
Who goes to Broadway to learn history? If you want to know more about Alexander Hamilton, try the library. There are dozens of serviceable biographies to be found, and a few truly excellent ones. And don't forget to read The Federalist Papers.
I don't recall learning much about Oklahoma from watching "Oklahoma," or much about Africa or nature from seeing "The Lion King." There's entertainment, and there's history. If theater-goers can't tell the difference, we have a much bigger problem on our hands.
I don't recall learning much about Oklahoma from watching "Oklahoma," or much about Africa or nature from seeing "The Lion King." There's entertainment, and there's history. If theater-goers can't tell the difference, we have a much bigger problem on our hands.
6
Mr. Hamilton,
I think you could have done better for yourself in your commentary.
We are all indebted to you for your foresight in creating the institution we know today as The Federal Reserve.
I think you could have done better for yourself in your commentary.
We are all indebted to you for your foresight in creating the institution we know today as The Federal Reserve.
Big banks? Had Hamilton had his way, there’d probably be no JPMorganChase today. Hamilton founded The Bank of New York in 1784 and regularly blocked Aaron Burr’s attempts to compete. So Lawyer Burr started a water company instead, burying language in the charter that would later permit financial transactions. Burr called it The Manhattan Company and started operations in 1799. It later morphed into The Bank of the Manhattan Company, then in 1955 was merged into Chase National. Its last traces, except for “Chartered 1799” disappeared into today’s JPMorganChase.
When JPMorganChase proudly claims “a history dating back over 200 years”, it is harking back to Burr’s 1799 water company, although for some reason, Aaron himself, the founding father, never rates a mention.
When JPMorganChase proudly claims “a history dating back over 200 years”, it is harking back to Burr’s 1799 water company, although for some reason, Aaron himself, the founding father, never rates a mention.
1
Well, folks better get used to getting airbrushed portraits of persons of historical achievement , or settle for getting no portrait at all
- after all, George Washington had slaves, FDR refused to bomb the rail lines to Auschwitz, Gandhi tested his celibacy with his nieces, and more recently William Jefferson Clinton or William Cosby, well you know...
- after all, George Washington had slaves, FDR refused to bomb the rail lines to Auschwitz, Gandhi tested his celibacy with his nieces, and more recently William Jefferson Clinton or William Cosby, well you know...
1
A lot of us think Shakespeare gave Richard III a bum rap, and that his history plays are propaganda. (It doesn't tarnish the magnificence of their poetry.) 'The Crucible' oversimplifies and bends the Salem Witch Trial frenzy to slam McCarthyism; it's a great play but if you're looking for insight into the psychology of the colonists, look elsewhere. Parson Weems' biography of Washington is almost completely fabricated, to set a moral example. I'm currently re-reading Edmund Wilson's 'Patriotic Gore', a survey of Northern and Southern writing about slavery and the Civil War by those who lived it, which reminds me how much more complex the circumstances and participants were than we like to think, looking back from 150 years later.
'Hamilton' - which I haven't seen; I don't like the cast album - may misrepresent the complexity of Hamilton for its own polemical purposes. So? The playwright designated Jefferson as his villain, and needed a hero, i.e. Hamilton. 'Unhappy is the land that needs a hero,' wrote Bertolt Brecht in 'Galileo' ... which itself takes some liberties with history.
I surely wouldn't go so far as Henry Ford's 'history is bunk'. But if you're getting all your history from only one source that's telling you what fits in with your preconceptions, that's where the problem lies. Tolle lege (take up and read).
'Hamilton' - which I haven't seen; I don't like the cast album - may misrepresent the complexity of Hamilton for its own polemical purposes. So? The playwright designated Jefferson as his villain, and needed a hero, i.e. Hamilton. 'Unhappy is the land that needs a hero,' wrote Bertolt Brecht in 'Galileo' ... which itself takes some liberties with history.
I surely wouldn't go so far as Henry Ford's 'history is bunk'. But if you're getting all your history from only one source that's telling you what fits in with your preconceptions, that's where the problem lies. Tolle lege (take up and read).
Hamilton is best known for his promotion of The First Bank of the United States in 1791. This bank was a precursor of the Fed, and Jackson was elected on opposition to it and the gold standard (silver was more plentiful and others were in favor of a fiat currency.)
The Fed contrary to widespread belief, as The First Bank, is not a government agency. It is a private bank, owned by the big banks.
The Fed contrary to widespread belief, as The First Bank, is not a government agency. It is a private bank, owned by the big banks.
I suggest a little more research on the Federal Reserve would be beneficial.
2
I think there is some unfair criticism in the way we teach history when we talk about how Hamilton imagined America (that he envisioned a strong executive branch reminiscent of monarchical hierarchy in how offices and powers were preserved). This unfairly compares his views with our modern understanding of government - a government that literally didn't exist at the time, they had to create it: 'every American Experiment sets a precedent.'
My biggest regret is that the play doesn't include Benjamin Franklin because he would have been a hilarious addition to the cast.
My biggest regret is that the play doesn't include Benjamin Franklin because he would have been a hilarious addition to the cast.
This is a musical on Broadway! Historians are concerned "people see it as a piece of history". Thing is, it's not. Moreover, it is sparking an interest in Hamilton. Like a good historical novel, it's easy to forget it's embelished. In the current atmosphere, when a small group of minority students protests teaching and honoring remarkable people in our history (because of slavery in the 17th-18th centuries), I wonder what is being taught about these remarkable men.
31
Another tempest in the politically correct teapot. This is a show, the same venue which has relied for years on "artistic license" to create entertainment at odds with source material.
For those who want reality, I suggest original documents, and then understand the times and mores in which the actions were taken. One can not judge past actions by today's standards, for if one does I sincerely doubt there would be one hero left.
For those who want reality, I suggest original documents, and then understand the times and mores in which the actions were taken. One can not judge past actions by today's standards, for if one does I sincerely doubt there would be one hero left.
8
Retire the phrase "politically correct." It means nothing, and it's thrown around pointlessly.
I am a public school music teacher who has used the film "Amadeus" to teach 8th graders about Mozart for 25 years. I am careful to point out the parts that are fictionalized. The students understand they are seeing a Hollywood film--and that it is not a documentary. However the artistic value of the film outweighs the historical inaccuracies. Same with this. Anyone who criticizes "Hamilton" for being inaccurate is really just looking for something to complain about.
10
Criticism of "Hamilton," is this even possible? I thought we all agreed it was the greatest work of art ever created and will in time solve all the world's problems.
12
Okay, it's a BROADWAY SHOW. Just like Star Wars is a m-o-v-i-e....please.
4
Very many children, like my two sons (14 and 11) listen to "Hamilton" frequently. I've hear a 16 yr old say it's her jam.
This is mind-opening literature and I know it will help a vast number of children think about our nation and its history, seeing it in a new light and with a new vigor. Let's face it -- most adults today thought American history was boring in middle and high school.
Sure, scholars are responsible for arguing the nuts and bolts of things. But historians should be ultimately thrilled by this musical no matter what inaccuracies they find -- they've never had so much limelight on their discipline. History is suddenly cool enough to connect with for everyone.
This is mind-opening literature and I know it will help a vast number of children think about our nation and its history, seeing it in a new light and with a new vigor. Let's face it -- most adults today thought American history was boring in middle and high school.
Sure, scholars are responsible for arguing the nuts and bolts of things. But historians should be ultimately thrilled by this musical no matter what inaccuracies they find -- they've never had so much limelight on their discipline. History is suddenly cool enough to connect with for everyone.
3
What makes Hamilton great is that Miranda understands the original intention and character of the founding fathers are not out concern, but how the revolutionary linguistic representation of equality in the founding documents still resonates and remains open to the interpretation of new generations. Martin Luther King Jr. seized on this idea as well in his writings on social justice. Hamilton is as much about writing as an act of creation and interpretation as it is about history. The bodies are gone but the text remains; who will claim it for their own revolution?
4
Whether or not they got all the history right, it has people, including young people, interested and talking about history, which is much more than any school textbook can do. Because of the musical, I can share articles like this one with my teenage kids and they'll actually read them and talk about them. That's cool.
4
This is ridiculous. We're talking about a musical, not a history lesson. This kind of silly discussion always comes up whenever a film or play with some historical context comes along. The purpose of "Hamilton" is to entertain people and make money while doing it. If you want history, stay home and read a history book. Otherwise, relax and enjoy a wonderful evening at the theater.
3
I've read Chernow's book which inspired Miranda and I saw the play.
'Hamilton' the play should be judged for what it is, a theatrical production not a complete and fully accurate historical account. If it inspires others to become interested in our country's history, seek out more information and learn something then it has done more than its job which is primarily to entertain.
'Hamilton' the play should be judged for what it is, a theatrical production not a complete and fully accurate historical account. If it inspires others to become interested in our country's history, seek out more information and learn something then it has done more than its job which is primarily to entertain.
2
The myth is always more interesting than the truth.
Next, The Times will search for the real-life Pinocchio.
4
Ah yes Jefferson the man of the people. Did he ever meet a "common" man? He was a wealthy ( remember he had married one of the wealthiest woman in VA) slaveholder who burned through his money and rescued from bankruptcy how many times? He was also left money to defray the cost to free his slaves, which he took and claimed that it was just a suggestion and that he really didn't have to do it. I doubt that if we had followed Jefferson's vision rather than Hamilton's we would still exist as a country and if we did it would be a far smaller less important country, certainly no Arsenal of Democracy.
1
I invite the critics of "Hamilton" to re-investigate a beloved historical re-imagining of another decade, "Amadeus." That play and film fictionalize the life of Mozart in myriad ways, all the way to the bank, the Oscars, and -- like "Hamilton" -- toward educating many about a great, influential figure. We owe these works of art a debt for freshly presenting otherwise musty, dusty hagiography in ways that stimulate and inspire. Miranda has probably done more than anyone to revitalize the museum ensconced tableaux vivants of American history.
1
Hamilton grew rich by marrying into one of New York's wealthiest slave-owning families. Despite belonging to the New York Manumission Society, he purchased and sold slaves on behalf of his wife. Historians disagree over whether the Hamilton’s ousehold servants were paid employees or slaves, but his wife’s family said they were slaves. Hamilton appears to be like many slave owners who thought slavery should be abolished sometime in the future when it wouldn’t interfere with their personal fortunes.
5
Hamilton had no personal fortune.
4
The lame comments by the jealous historians are embarrassing.
For anyone who hasn't read Chernow's great book, here's the link: http://smile.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Ron-Chernow/dp/0143034758/ref...
For anyone who hasn't read Chernow's great book, here's the link: http://smile.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Ron-Chernow/dp/0143034758/ref...
4
"Intellectuals are like the Mafia. They only kill their own"
- Woody Allen
- Woody Allen
We once again witness the natural order of human observations. Step 1 - Build up: "Hamilton the musical is great great great , "Where can I find tickets!?"
Step 2 - Tear down. "A casting notice was racist!" (a call for non-white actors), "It's historically inaccurate!", "there will be a Hamilton program burning at 3pm today in the middle of Times Sqaure - led by Spiderman and Elmo".
Step 3 - Move on to the next success and start the process over again.
Step 2 - Tear down. "A casting notice was racist!" (a call for non-white actors), "It's historically inaccurate!", "there will be a Hamilton program burning at 3pm today in the middle of Times Sqaure - led by Spiderman and Elmo".
Step 3 - Move on to the next success and start the process over again.
1
Sooner or later, the academician "spoilsports" were bound to have their day. Damn it, Lin-Manuel Miranda, you had a full 175 minutes to achieve perfection in reporting the man's life! I guess we'll not be hearing from you again.
Meanwhile, let's stick with Ron Chernow's take on it.
Meanwhile, let's stick with Ron Chernow's take on it.
Shows like this are entertainment and uplift the spirit, at least of most people. They present broadly a point of view and try to capture part of the spirit of some phase of life or history. Clearly the play Hamilton does that and the view presented resonates with most who attend. That's good and all any good show can generally do.
Most historians themselves have never done much of anything on a practical level to help others. In fact most think that knowing what they know now, if they had been in charge in the past, all the right decisions would have been made. Amazing how that works when you know the outcome ahead of time.
Some historians such as those at several of the elite universities quoted here couldn't actually form and run a small family business, let alone found a country and make it work to some reasonable but imperfect degree. They are idealists with little common sense or real world experience. A small number thankfully do actually have some wisdom and we should be thankful for them.
Most historians themselves have never done much of anything on a practical level to help others. In fact most think that knowing what they know now, if they had been in charge in the past, all the right decisions would have been made. Amazing how that works when you know the outcome ahead of time.
Some historians such as those at several of the elite universities quoted here couldn't actually form and run a small family business, let alone found a country and make it work to some reasonable but imperfect degree. They are idealists with little common sense or real world experience. A small number thankfully do actually have some wisdom and we should be thankful for them.
it is a fact that a novel, movie or play is never historically accurate. Some are more accurate than others. Did anyone who studies history expect Hamilton to be close to history? Rumors and folk tales are hard to dispel. People still believe Doubleday invented baseball. The movie "Braveheart" was a joke; a smidgen of historical accuracy: there was a William Wallace. I am surprised that historians are surprised.
Honestly, this entire article is fairly absurd. I love how Jefferson the man actually enslaved his children, yet the outrage here is how a BROADWAY MUSICAL is overplaying how vociferously Hamilton objected to slavery. Also, including people of color in the cast? OMG, such an outrageous thing to do! There's a creative interpretation driving this entire show, something that's lost on scholars who are dissecting it like it's a history lesson. How is it that Hamilton still gets dissed, after all he did? Were our founding fathers perfect? Of course now. But c'mon, let a guy get his much deserved due. Ron Chernow's Hamilton biography is a masterpiece. So is the show Hamilton.
4
Re-post (previous offended the safe space of public discourse)
- -
The play suffers from, or advocates Presentism, imposing the present on the past, so that we can feel good about ourselves and condescend to those who created this country
I missed the memo where it is okay for Persons Of Color to play White historical characters but not the reverse, hard to keep up,
The creation of this country in 1789 by these various rogues and malefactors, led to the end of slavery in 1865, a single lifetime after these 1789 events, 76 years single lifetime
We don't get much publicity on that, awkward facts, these guys (and GUYS they were) were the good guys
-
The country was created by US Const, per public advocacy in the Federalist Papers, the popular literacy then which absorbed all that dialogue and discussion, assign that now on campus and get a sit-in
- - - these days we would argue ConLaw in 140 characters and emoji
- - -and yeah we would all still be in the woods and still painting our our bodies blue (oops that was the English or forebears)
Con Law, -- what do mere words mean (textualism if you are Tony Scalia? Ask Eliza Doolittle, also at Broadway
- words words words I'm so sick words
-
you betcha!
-
- -
The play suffers from, or advocates Presentism, imposing the present on the past, so that we can feel good about ourselves and condescend to those who created this country
I missed the memo where it is okay for Persons Of Color to play White historical characters but not the reverse, hard to keep up,
The creation of this country in 1789 by these various rogues and malefactors, led to the end of slavery in 1865, a single lifetime after these 1789 events, 76 years single lifetime
We don't get much publicity on that, awkward facts, these guys (and GUYS they were) were the good guys
-
The country was created by US Const, per public advocacy in the Federalist Papers, the popular literacy then which absorbed all that dialogue and discussion, assign that now on campus and get a sit-in
- - - these days we would argue ConLaw in 140 characters and emoji
- - -and yeah we would all still be in the woods and still painting our our bodies blue (oops that was the English or forebears)
Con Law, -- what do mere words mean (textualism if you are Tony Scalia? Ask Eliza Doolittle, also at Broadway
- words words words I'm so sick words
-
you betcha!
-
2
This article didn't clarify how accurate this portrayal of Hamilton is, but, as a rule, I think anytime someone is depicting the life of real figures, whether for entertainment or education, the s/he carries a moral obligation to be truthful. If one wants to deal in fiction, don't use non-fictitious characters.
3
At a basic level, you’re right. But given the constraints of time in a film or theater piece, plus the need to hold the audience’s interest and maintain a coherent story line, it is rarely possible. (I recently learned that Peter O’Toole was about a foot taller than T.E. Lawrence. Who knew?)
I mean really, give credit where it is do. The play has sparked conversation and interest in American History. In the form of great entertainment for kids and adults how often does that happen!
“It’s an amazing piece of theater, but it concerns me that people are seeing it as a piece of history,” Ms. Monteiro, an assistant professor of history at Rutgers University, Newark, said in an interview.
Well, they shouldn't. Let's hope people are intrigued enough to do their research on the historical Hamilton and his times, and actually learn something.
Well, they shouldn't. Let's hope people are intrigued enough to do their research on the historical Hamilton and his times, and actually learn something.
1
It's a musical, not a historical recreation of Hamilton's life. People need to get over themselves.
2
It's far too easy to take Hamilton, the man, out of context historically, but you cannot overstate his value as a Founding Father by any means, be it a book, a movie or a theater production. Quibbling over details is pointless. He wasn't perfect and neither are any of the historians who are presently sounding the alarms of revisionist history.
1
This is a revolutionary musical about the Revolution. The show is obviously not a seminar, it is art. In any case, I wish people were more critical of the high ticket prices, which prevent most people of modest means (especially the poor african-american community) from attending. Perhaps the cast should perform a few weeks of free shows for the inner city youths whose minds might be opened to the unique interpretation of history. Then we could really laud the impact that this show could have.
1
If you're trying to learn history through a Broadway musical, God bless you. If you're complaining that a Broadway musical isn't 100% historically accurate, God help you....
4
A clearer understanding of Hamilton’s views can be gained from the perspective of Agrarian versus Merchant culture. Alexander Hamilton immigrated to America’s east coast with the express purpose to make his way and become successful in the merchant economy. The Eastern coast economy was more based in trade and marketing than the South. At that time people believed land ownership represented the highest level of society, and merchants were of a lower class. Much of Hamilton’s actions reflects his desire to improve his station in life. Jefferson and the other landed gentry depended on a slave based economy, and therefore sought to justify and support their way of life, while Hamilton was not encumbered by his living to support the idea of slavery. In fact by attacking slavery he was attacking the “privileged class”.
2
With all due respect to the historians quoted in this article, each of their perspectives is as oversimplified as the 2 hour Broadway musical they criticize. The show is outstanding, and its use of historical drama as a setting for its contemporary messages is the point. Sometimes academics can be the dullest people in the room....
5
And the historians, based on their comments in this story, should DEFINITELY not be watching any Shakespeare! Oh, the inaccuracies!
7
Everyone insisting that "Hamilton" is ONLY a musical, not history (so "lighten up") are wrong. Too many are leaving the show humming tunes and thrilled because they "learned" American history.
If it's ONLY a musical, then are failing to take it with the necessary grain of salt. Perhaps it should have been called "Hello Hamilton!" or "Springtime for Hamilton" to remind people that it's fiction?
If it's ONLY a musical, then are failing to take it with the necessary grain of salt. Perhaps it should have been called "Hello Hamilton!" or "Springtime for Hamilton" to remind people that it's fiction?
3
We expect entertainment to be entertaining, is that wrong? Most documentaries are manipulated into a clean narrative with clear good/evil dichotomies, and people watch those assuming that they just "learned" something - why should a musical be held to a tighter scrutiny?
I don't think you need to remind people that it's fictional - King George III prances around singing songs that sounded like the Beatles, it's clearly not a 100% accurate duplication of reality.
I don't think you need to remind people that it's fictional - King George III prances around singing songs that sounded like the Beatles, it's clearly not a 100% accurate duplication of reality.
Slavery in the modern times differs from what we know from history. Slavery is a life that exists in all faiths . The Blacks must not call it slavery as they are a heading fora future that " equal but separate". One has to understand equality . We must avoid "no governance" and violence .
Of course it is nonsense, but because it is a black and latino smash hit it cannot be criticized by whites. End of story.
3
Your comment seems to suggest more about your own attitudes than anything. It is telling that the two historians most quoted here about the level of historical accuracy in the play are the African American Annette Gordon-Reed and the Latina Lyra D. Monteiro, yet the historians most quoted as supporting it are white, including Ron Chernow, who wrote the book on which the play is based. Then again, they all seem to acknowledge the compelling, dramatic value of the play as entertainment referencing history.
That said, the conflict between historical accuracy and artistic representation of history is as old as The Epic of Gilgamesh, the Bible, the Illiad, or most any other such text.
That said, the conflict between historical accuracy and artistic representation of history is as old as The Epic of Gilgamesh, the Bible, the Illiad, or most any other such text.
1
I am so fed up and have huge Agita just hearing the words "Hamilton" or "Manuel Lyn Miranda". Enough already. Do you people know what "Over Saturation" means?
2
Opponents to slavery in were often racist.
What a majority of opponents objected to was how slavery undermined white wages.
What a majority of opponents objected to was how slavery undermined white wages.
Seriously? Without Hamilton's brilliance, there would not be a UNITED States of America in any form we would recognize. The Founding Fathers created the concept of a representative democracy. Hamilton made it work.
The musical "Hamilton" is just that -- a, brilliant, inventive work of great genius. Just like the man himself.
The musical "Hamilton" is just that -- a, brilliant, inventive work of great genius. Just like the man himself.
2
I remember in a blog post someone asked why Maria Reynolds seems to be slightly villainized in the musical when it seems like she was the one who had it worse off than Hamilton. and someone else answered that since the musical is, after its namesake, Hamilton-centric, he's portrayed as slightly more heroic and worthy of sympathy, regardless if that was actually the case. This may have been what Miranda was going for when he glossed over some of the more negative aspects of the protagonist. Remember, it's Hamilton, so the main character has to be likable. Also, the story's more or less told from his point of view, so naturally he'll be the one singing that he's "Helpless" instead of Maria, glorifying his close friends' roles in major events, etc.
Stop the presses! A commercial Broadway success isn't a well researched history book, too? Wait - is that also true of Fiddler on the Roof, t or Les Miz,? It can't be true of movies, though, can it? This is an absurd premise....
1
It's an American Broadway musical, folks. Don't overthink it.
(Instead you might just visit "The Grange", Hamilton's home that still exists in his old stomping ground of then rural Upper Manhattan, and a basis for the musical's creation.)
(Instead you might just visit "The Grange", Hamilton's home that still exists in his old stomping ground of then rural Upper Manhattan, and a basis for the musical's creation.)
1
I was in a play written by Tom Stoppard on Broadway in which almost all of the characters were historical figures. One actor protested that the man behind his character hadn't done or said some of the things he was saying and doing in the play — that we should do what was true. Tom Stoppard replied memorably and without malice, "The trouble is: just because it's true doesn't mean it's interesting."
3
Stoppard's language and imaginative treatments were the point of his plays. What a thrill it must have been as an actor to be a part of it.
"Hamilton" is hamburger; Stoppard is steak.
"Hamilton" is hamburger; Stoppard is steak.
The founding of countries are always enveloped in myths. Romulus and the founding of Rome, Ulysses and the founding of Lisbon, and so on. More recent countries don't use mythical figures to explain their beginnings, they resort to mythologizing their historical figures. It is the role of historians to point out this burnishing of the founding fathers, it is not the role of artists to do so. An artistic rendering of events is interested in the integrity of the structure of the narrative and in the message it seeks to convey. It cannot include all the complex elements of the historical incidents. And if historical truth needs to be bend, shaped or even altered, so be it. So, don't ask a historian to tell you about a play or a novel, ask an interested viewer or reader.
2
“One of the most interesting things about the ‘Hamilton’ phenomenon, is just how little serious criticism the play has received.”
Oh, that's rich. It's a MUSICAL not a PhD historical dissertation. I'm a bit of a junky of political history, and it has raised a millions questions that I never knew that I had.
The musical has raised a massive amount of serious, frank discussions, and I welcome the historians to join the new community of people who are having them.
Oh, that's rich. It's a MUSICAL not a PhD historical dissertation. I'm a bit of a junky of political history, and it has raised a millions questions that I never knew that I had.
The musical has raised a massive amount of serious, frank discussions, and I welcome the historians to join the new community of people who are having them.
21
agree. and the real artistic issue is to demonstrate that hip hop can work, just as the jazz based music of the 1920s and 30s moved musicals away from the operetta.
1
No surprise that a play leaves out facts or otherwise misrepresents them.
Good now that historians chime in.
Good now that historians chime in.
4
What I think is brilliant about the show is the way it reminds us all of the "young, scrappy, and hungry" American values and encourages young people, especially young people of color, to "not throw away my shot." Miranda is reminding us all that it can be a deeply patriotic act to work to better yourself and to engage in vigorous debate about how to better your community. The show is not about hero-worship, but about reimagining yourself as the hero and writing your own story.
8
I have to admit I have no interest in this musical. However, for all the hype about black performers playing white roles in it, Lin-Manuel Miranda doesn't look very 'black' to me. But this is America: The birthplace and home of the ONE-DROP rule. Where a president with a white parent and grandparents is considered the 1st black president. But, we will effortlessly find a way to explain or rationalize that illogical consensus, just like we've been doing with everything related to race since 1776.
5
Popularized American history has put our forefathers on a pedestal. In reality they were human beings filled with dichotomies. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and owned slaves. Patrick Henry opposed the constitution because he was afraid of a strong national government and yet fought to make the American version of the Church of England as the state religion in Virginia. Hamilton, as a poor immigrant from the Caribbean, immersed himself in the mercantile world of NY and yet ended up as a strong proponent for a Republican (political theory, not the political party) form of government. The Founders were split over the constitution, and, yet they came together eventually to support Washington's vision of a country stretching across the continent.
I haven't seen the show yet but am looking forward to it.
I haven't seen the show yet but am looking forward to it.
3
This article states: "In the show’s last song, his widow, Eliza, sings that Hamilton would have 'done so much more' against slavery had he lived longer." WRONG - the lyric Eliza sings says Hamilton "COULD have done so much more." That's a significant difference!
I think it's interesting that historians are crawling out of the woodwork, piling on & trying to piggy-back their criticisms and opinions onto this show, simply because "Hamilton" is such a roaring success. Lin-Manuel Miranda has provided a platform that NONE of these historians have been able to create on the topic. He's got us talking, thinking and reading!
Hamilton was human - flawed, like all of us - and the contradictions in his character and behavior are part of who he was. Jefferson's manifest contradictions do not seem to detract from America's view of him, so why single out Hamilton?
Ms. Monteiro's comment - "The founders, she added, 'really didn’t want to create the country we actually live in today.'” - is 100% meaningless in this conversation. We're talking about a piece of ART that is the creation and vision of Mr. Miranda.
I find these criticisms of Mr. Miranda's work to be on the petty side. My take on it is that these oh-so-serious historians (who like to make history pedantic & boring) are rather jealous of Mr. Miranda. He's been able to make history come vividly alive to all of us who are living right NOW. Historians are as jealous of Mr. Hamilton as Jefferson ever was!
I think it's interesting that historians are crawling out of the woodwork, piling on & trying to piggy-back their criticisms and opinions onto this show, simply because "Hamilton" is such a roaring success. Lin-Manuel Miranda has provided a platform that NONE of these historians have been able to create on the topic. He's got us talking, thinking and reading!
Hamilton was human - flawed, like all of us - and the contradictions in his character and behavior are part of who he was. Jefferson's manifest contradictions do not seem to detract from America's view of him, so why single out Hamilton?
Ms. Monteiro's comment - "The founders, she added, 'really didn’t want to create the country we actually live in today.'” - is 100% meaningless in this conversation. We're talking about a piece of ART that is the creation and vision of Mr. Miranda.
I find these criticisms of Mr. Miranda's work to be on the petty side. My take on it is that these oh-so-serious historians (who like to make history pedantic & boring) are rather jealous of Mr. Miranda. He's been able to make history come vividly alive to all of us who are living right NOW. Historians are as jealous of Mr. Hamilton as Jefferson ever was!
10
It's Broadway ... not History.
4
The mot serious transgression of Hamilton is to send his agents around buying up script paid to revolutionary soldiers for 10 cents on the dollar. When he became Secretary of the Treasury he managed to get the government to buy them back at par value. Burr didn't shoot him some enough.
"Scholars Respond" will be the next great musical.
13
50 years from now no public building will be named after anybody because we will have discovered that every human being will eventually be judged to have been immoral because of changing codes. Therefore public buildings will be named things like "Northwest Regional Federal Building #114" or "XYZ University Main Library" or the "Multiculturally Inclusive School of Law".
The motto of the last one will be: "Privilege Has Always Been Our Enemy".
The motto of the last one will be: "Privilege Has Always Been Our Enemy".
5
Jeez Louise! The backlash begins. What responsibility does a hip hop version of Revolutionary era history with a multi-ethnic cast have to adhere to every historical fact? A pox on these critics! 'Hamilton' was worth every penny I spent on my family's tickets.
7
As the song goes..."That's Entertainment."
It has been proven time and time again that history realities have to be changed because they turned out to be wrong. Many times politics or incorrect hard data created false believes of what happened 25 or 100, or 1 million years ago. To show Hamilton as an singing and dancing Afro-American Broadway performer is probably a minor incorrectness compared to most of the earlier facts presented in our history books. Enjoy the show.
2
If you think a story needs to be told, pick up a pen or a guitar or sit down at a piano and make it happen. If you decide write an engaging work of art about Hercule Mulligan's slave, i'm all in. Follow your own genius.
9
The view that "it's only a movie so why are you getting excited" is the incorrect way to see things as what we see influences what we believe. Can you say The Birth of a Nation or Gone With the Wind were just movies? Absolutely not, they influenced how millions saw the Civil War, slavery and reconstruction, which still reverberate to this day.
Sometimes how you remember an event is more important than the event itself.
Sometimes how you remember an event is more important than the event itself.
3
Popular entertainment simplifies its subject. That is why it is popular.
We should not be considering entertainments like "Hamilton" or "1776" or old John Wayne westerns for that matter, as definitive treatises on history.
We should not be considering entertainments like "Hamilton" or "1776" or old John Wayne westerns for that matter, as definitive treatises on history.
1
FDR reviewed Claude Bower’s “Hamilton and Jefferson” for the New York World in 1925. He closed the book review with these words:
“Hamiltons we have today. Is there a Jefferson on the horizon?"
Obviously, Roosevelt considered himself a Jefferson/Jackson democrat and not a Hamilton elitist. Today, as in 1925, during another period of financial excess, we have enough Hamiltons.
Is there a Roosevelt on the Horizon?
“Hamiltons we have today. Is there a Jefferson on the horizon?"
Obviously, Roosevelt considered himself a Jefferson/Jackson democrat and not a Hamilton elitist. Today, as in 1925, during another period of financial excess, we have enough Hamiltons.
Is there a Roosevelt on the Horizon?
2
Hamilton is first and foremost entertainment. Anyone expecting undiluted history or 100% historical accuracy should watch c-span or visit the Libary of Congress instead.
1
The revival of interest in Alexander Hamilton and the last quarter of the 18th Century again reminds us that in a democratic republic, having the franchise is not enough to guaranty liberty. Unless you combine the right to vote with an educated, informed and engaged public, democracy quickly descends into mob rule, or worse, the tyranny of the majority in which the baser instincts of the mob are kept just enough in check to hold its center and perpetuate the evils of this species of tyranny. We see this happen time and again in the Third World and yet say, that couldn't happen here, could it? We stand on the brink if not in the pit. The movement in Kansas and other states to check the power of the judiciary is just that: the tyranny of the majority come home to roost.
3
"Amid Cheers, Some See an Airbrushed ‘Hamilton’"
"Some" people will always see something. It's the cheapest, laziest form of journalism. Not everything needs to be deconstructed because "some" people see something.
"Some" people will always see something. It's the cheapest, laziest form of journalism. Not everything needs to be deconstructed because "some" people see something.
5
Alexander Hamilton was a monarchist, whose political philosophy was undemocratic.
One of his great “achievements” was putting together a financial syndicate, which secretly purchased continental bonds for pennies by sending agents throughout the colonies (remember, not worth a continental), then he bribed congress to redeem the bonds a full value.
But his financial swindle didn’t stop with deceiving and thieving. Hamilton then induced congress to pass a whiskey tax, so that not only was the general public swindled out of their bonds, but they would be paying a general use tax to pay off the bonds.
And so Wall Street stepped onto the national stage. Nice trick.
One of his great “achievements” was putting together a financial syndicate, which secretly purchased continental bonds for pennies by sending agents throughout the colonies (remember, not worth a continental), then he bribed congress to redeem the bonds a full value.
But his financial swindle didn’t stop with deceiving and thieving. Hamilton then induced congress to pass a whiskey tax, so that not only was the general public swindled out of their bonds, but they would be paying a general use tax to pay off the bonds.
And so Wall Street stepped onto the national stage. Nice trick.
1
It is entertainment, not history, even if it might have been inspired by some elements of history. If it encourages people to learn the real history, that might be a plus, but it cannot be relied upon as being even remotely historically accurate.
Hamilton argued for a common currency, big banks, business and a general diminishment of people's rights. Jefferson argued, at times, for the compete opposite sans a common currency. America became unfortunately what Hamilton envisioned, but Jefferson and his vision were right.
(Also, the article fails to point out that Jefferson tried to eliminate slavery 30-some times in his home state of Virginia.)
(Also, the article fails to point out that Jefferson tried to eliminate slavery 30-some times in his home state of Virginia.)
It's fiction! That's why they call it "fiction." Otherwise it would be "history" or "documentary" or even "boring."
Even "history" fudges the truth if only by highlighting some facts and skipping others, for the sake of brevity or to make a point. If you don't include every little fact, then by definition history is fudged slightly. It's inevitable. Historians just pretend otherwise. They pretend that they are not also including narrative lines to interpret the facts. The narrative is developed by the historian and is akin to fiction. It changes raw-data facts into a story -- history. There is an element of fiction in all non-fiction history.
Even "history" fudges the truth if only by highlighting some facts and skipping others, for the sake of brevity or to make a point. If you don't include every little fact, then by definition history is fudged slightly. It's inevitable. Historians just pretend otherwise. They pretend that they are not also including narrative lines to interpret the facts. The narrative is developed by the historian and is akin to fiction. It changes raw-data facts into a story -- history. There is an element of fiction in all non-fiction history.
1
These historical clarifications are vital and important for people who choose to substitute the musical for learning history which are quite a few. Miranda created this incredible theater piece weaving today's minorities and their language into our shared history so one must allow for poetic license given such a task. The real Hamilton from other scholarly sources suggest he was much more an elitist than a man of the people and calling him an abolitionist really seems like a stretch but clearly necessary for the show to fuel its own aesthetic. No historical work of art will ever completely capture all aspects of a person or period.
4
It is possible for the show to be, at the same time, an amazing work of art, an opportunity for the public to engage with the history of the founding of our country and a flawed historical account that whitewashes both the role of African Americans and the role of slavery in the creation of our nation. I'm a middle school teacher and I plan to both the songs from the play and the criticisms by scholars like Lyra Monteiro in a unit on the American Revolution with my students next year. It's not always either/or; it be can both/and.
2
I have read several of Ron Churnow's books including the excellent book on Alexander Hamilton. Few people appreciate how Hamilton worked for George Washington as his assistant and how Hamilton help save the Revolutionary Army. Hamilton did this by helping steal several British canon and using canister rounds, kept the British at bay while our army escaped across the Hudson River to NJ.
Yes Hamilton did increase the wealth of our government after seeing how the soldiers suffered with no food and no shoes and were leaving bloody foot prints at Valley Forge.
Hamilton had asked George Washington for a battle command many times and when the battle of Yorktown started, Hamilton told unless he was given command of part of the battle against the British, he would immediately resign his post as Washington's assistant.
Washington relented and Hamilton led a light infantry charge against British Redoubt #10 and captured that strong point while Lafayette captured Redoubt #9.
This is important to me because one of my direct ancestors. John Pleasant Burton, a member of the Virginia Militia fought under Hamilton's Command.
Yes our history is very important and if it takes a Broadway Play to stimulate interest in our history, that is good.
When I discovered many of my ancestors owned large plantations in VA and NC, that was an epiphany for me.
Yes Hamilton did increase the wealth of our government after seeing how the soldiers suffered with no food and no shoes and were leaving bloody foot prints at Valley Forge.
Hamilton had asked George Washington for a battle command many times and when the battle of Yorktown started, Hamilton told unless he was given command of part of the battle against the British, he would immediately resign his post as Washington's assistant.
Washington relented and Hamilton led a light infantry charge against British Redoubt #10 and captured that strong point while Lafayette captured Redoubt #9.
This is important to me because one of my direct ancestors. John Pleasant Burton, a member of the Virginia Militia fought under Hamilton's Command.
Yes our history is very important and if it takes a Broadway Play to stimulate interest in our history, that is good.
When I discovered many of my ancestors owned large plantations in VA and NC, that was an epiphany for me.
Wait... historical figures might be portrayed in overly positive ways? For serious?
"How much serious criticism the play has received?"
Yes, I think people that go to the play expecting a detailed historical context and thoughtful and deep analysis of the man's motivations and psychology will be disappointed.
But then, they're missing the point of theater, aren't they?
This is entertainment.
And it should be the tinder that ignites a long overdo public and historical discussion about this most interesting and critical member of our country's DNA.
As a play, it does all that can be expected from a distillation of the life of such a seminal figure into but a few hours.
When the inevitable made-for-tv multi-episodic appears, then this question may have more pertinence.
Yes, I think people that go to the play expecting a detailed historical context and thoughtful and deep analysis of the man's motivations and psychology will be disappointed.
But then, they're missing the point of theater, aren't they?
This is entertainment.
And it should be the tinder that ignites a long overdo public and historical discussion about this most interesting and critical member of our country's DNA.
As a play, it does all that can be expected from a distillation of the life of such a seminal figure into but a few hours.
When the inevitable made-for-tv multi-episodic appears, then this question may have more pertinence.
I don't believe that every play, movie, novel, etc. has to be an totally accurate re-telling of events or persons. They are entertainment! I often question memoirs that have actual conversations of people when they were 3 or 4 years old. I am lucky to remember accurate conversations from 10 years ago. But what I can agree is that they will promote interest in the subject and send the individual to pursue (heaven forbid) in a thoroughly researched non-fiction account of the topic. That what happens to me!!! I actually read those as books I buy or from the library, so I can peruse the footnotes. But alas, I am from an older generation!
Writing a play in hip-hop lyric style may seem like an innovation, but perhaps it's just a way for those who feel marginalized in our society to lay claim to its founding legends. Those who have done the heavy lifting of dry historical tomes know that among many other salient facts, the people of color we now have to refer to so piously as "African-Americans" were each considered 3/5 of a person for congressional apportionment purposes. There is no question that the very concepts that we wallow in--black lives matter, si se puedo, and all their ideological children who have found safe space in our contemporary confusion--did not have any place in that time. One objects to a minority culture insisting on covering everything with its graffiti, figuratively or literally, in order to make itself known and heard.
Born poor and did rise due to his own brilliance. An important aide to Washington during the Revolution. Writer of the Federalist Papers ensuring ratification of the Constitution. First Treasury Secretary. Perfect? No. but we live in the country we have- laws, strong central government, a hustling, bustling center of commerce-largely because of him. Chief Justice Marshall: Compared to Hamilton, I am like "a candle beside the sun at noonday."
1
Historians can be just like those annoying people who can't avoid pointing out typos and grammar errors.
Let me share this - I volunteer at the Paterson Great Fall NHP where Hamilton's statue overlooks the Falls, as founder (he assembled the business men who purchased and founded Paterson as an industrial city). Before the musical appeared, no one spoke much about out bronze icon, but as Hamilton has flourished, it seems everyone knows at least a little bit about him.
And let's be clear - Hamilton served Washington very well as Secretary of the Treasury, using his tremendous intellect and energy to create a practical and effective Treasury Department our of thin air. The US became solvent and even prosperous from his efforts.
If we add to that his efforts to pass the Constitution (via the Federalist Papers), it is hard not to accept that he was truly a great man.
Let me share this - I volunteer at the Paterson Great Fall NHP where Hamilton's statue overlooks the Falls, as founder (he assembled the business men who purchased and founded Paterson as an industrial city). Before the musical appeared, no one spoke much about out bronze icon, but as Hamilton has flourished, it seems everyone knows at least a little bit about him.
And let's be clear - Hamilton served Washington very well as Secretary of the Treasury, using his tremendous intellect and energy to create a practical and effective Treasury Department our of thin air. The US became solvent and even prosperous from his efforts.
If we add to that his efforts to pass the Constitution (via the Federalist Papers), it is hard not to accept that he was truly a great man.
4
Attacking Hamilton is absurd. His life and importance as one of the greatest of our founding fathers is brilliantly and properly celebrated in the musical. Having read Ron Chernow's superb biography before seeing the musical,let me assure you he was even greater than the show has time to demonstrate. His writing contributions to our most important documents were invaluable for example. Try reading his contributions to the Federalist Papers and the U.S. Constitution to start with. Then he created our banking system, still operating today and he became the first Secretary of the Treasury.Also his role as Washington's closest
Aide and his own bravery in battle. He was also against slavery and never had any. What more could one want? This great musical properly honors him and so should our country!
Aide and his own bravery in battle. He was also against slavery and never had any. What more could one want? This great musical properly honors him and so should our country!
2
To win the Revolution, the Continental Congress had borrowed from the French and Dutch and issued millions in fiat money, called “continentals”, to citizens who helped to fight the British. The value of these IOUs had sunk to a few pennies on the dollar since the war.
Notably, Jefferson was absent for almost the entire first year of Washington's presidency as he had been dispatched to Europe to negotiate the debt repayment to the French and Dutch.
Hamilton devised a scheme with his banking cronies throughout the colonies [There were only two banks in the country at that time - The Bank of North America and the Bank of New York, which Hamilton himself had co-founded!] to pay every penny on the dollar for those “continentals”. Knowing about this in advance, however, Hamilton and his partners sent scouts throughout the colonies ahead of the congressional announcement and purchased - for pennies on the dollar - all the “continentals” they could find.
When the formal announcement was issued, Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, issued payment - every penny on the dollar - for the “continentals”, now held by him and his banking friends. They all got wealthier than they already were, while regular civilians who had fought and died for this country were left with pennies..
When Jefferson finally did return from Europe he was aghast and would forever be enemies with Hamilton, ultimately culminating in the famous Burr-Hamilton duel.
Notably, Jefferson was absent for almost the entire first year of Washington's presidency as he had been dispatched to Europe to negotiate the debt repayment to the French and Dutch.
Hamilton devised a scheme with his banking cronies throughout the colonies [There were only two banks in the country at that time - The Bank of North America and the Bank of New York, which Hamilton himself had co-founded!] to pay every penny on the dollar for those “continentals”. Knowing about this in advance, however, Hamilton and his partners sent scouts throughout the colonies ahead of the congressional announcement and purchased - for pennies on the dollar - all the “continentals” they could find.
When the formal announcement was issued, Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, issued payment - every penny on the dollar - for the “continentals”, now held by him and his banking friends. They all got wealthier than they already were, while regular civilians who had fought and died for this country were left with pennies..
When Jefferson finally did return from Europe he was aghast and would forever be enemies with Hamilton, ultimately culminating in the famous Burr-Hamilton duel.
2
Miranda should do a show about T. Jefferson, a much more interesting man (and man of the people) than Hamilton. This show is an accident of history, because Miranda picked up a book and personally identified with Hamilton due to the fact that he was born in the West Indies.
But, Hamilton distrusted the masses, democracy, and poor people. He believed the rich and educated should rule. Whereas Hamilton wanted more voter restrictions, Jefferson, an anti-elitist, wanted less. It's unfortunate that Miranda's show took a shot at Jefferson simply over the issue of Sally Hemings. Jefferson was much more than that.
Hamilton just isn't the man that you-would-think Miranda would like, especially compared to Jefferson, but my guess is that Miranda is somewhat naive when it comes to history.
Hamilton was an elitist and a Federalist. Hamilton didn't want more democracy, he wanted the U.S. modeled after Britain's government. Hamilton also fronted for wealthy Europeans who wanted more banks and high interest lending.
Hamilton was basically a modern Republican while his political rivals, like Jefferson and Jackson, created the Democratic Party. I like Miranda, what he is doing and his genius, but his choice of Hamilton, all because he was born "poor" in the West Indies, is an accidental and slightly ironic outcome.
Hamilton was "rags to riches" elitist, often the worst kind of elitist. That should take nothing away from Miranda's genius -- I just hope his next subject is Jefferson
But, Hamilton distrusted the masses, democracy, and poor people. He believed the rich and educated should rule. Whereas Hamilton wanted more voter restrictions, Jefferson, an anti-elitist, wanted less. It's unfortunate that Miranda's show took a shot at Jefferson simply over the issue of Sally Hemings. Jefferson was much more than that.
Hamilton just isn't the man that you-would-think Miranda would like, especially compared to Jefferson, but my guess is that Miranda is somewhat naive when it comes to history.
Hamilton was an elitist and a Federalist. Hamilton didn't want more democracy, he wanted the U.S. modeled after Britain's government. Hamilton also fronted for wealthy Europeans who wanted more banks and high interest lending.
Hamilton was basically a modern Republican while his political rivals, like Jefferson and Jackson, created the Democratic Party. I like Miranda, what he is doing and his genius, but his choice of Hamilton, all because he was born "poor" in the West Indies, is an accidental and slightly ironic outcome.
Hamilton was "rags to riches" elitist, often the worst kind of elitist. That should take nothing away from Miranda's genius -- I just hope his next subject is Jefferson
2
If you want to skewer Hamilton because of his position on slavery then to be consistent you have to totally condemn those slave-owning founding fathers, Washington and Jefferson, whose wealth was largely based on slave labor. Hamilton, on the other hand, earned an honest living as a practicing lawyer.
If Broadway plays are now required to meet standards of historical accuracy, all you'll get to go to the theater are history professors! Lighten up, folks - the purpose of a play is to provide entertainment, not be a definitive or exhaustive scholarly work.
1
If you are presenting a musical based on history, it's not wrong to assume some accuracy.
After seeing Les Miserables, I just assumed the French sang and danced thru it all. Why would I think different about Hamilton? Who knew Al could carry a tune and the Revolution had a backbeat you can't lose.
1
Alexander Hamilton was not only representative of the nation's history, he was representative of New York's history, and in that light, as the play's author, Miranda, says, the play is America's past viewed through the lenses of America's present. Yes, the play's nonwhite cast shines a light on the historical portrayal of the Founders as all white, but that should only encourage historians, authors and others to research primary documents and uncover other supporting Founders Fathers and Mothers. And there were many.
Hamilton lived, worked and is memorialized at Wall and William Streets (he lived at 58 William St. at Wall St.). He created a national bank that built an economy at Wall Street and Broadway. He and other Founders were New York, yet very little is known about their supporting Founders. Colonial New York still holds many secrets of the nation's founding history. When an 18th-century merchant cargo ship was discovered six stories underground below the World Trade Center near where Hamilton lived, worked and is memorialized, an historian hired by the New York Port Authority which owned the site and the ship's remains, declared that her history will never be known. But her history, a complex history, was found. I researched and found a very complex Founder's history. When the past is viewed though the lenses of the present, be it rap music and a nonwhite cast, or finding the Americans, enslaved and free, who supported the Founders, our history is diverse.
Hamilton lived, worked and is memorialized at Wall and William Streets (he lived at 58 William St. at Wall St.). He created a national bank that built an economy at Wall Street and Broadway. He and other Founders were New York, yet very little is known about their supporting Founders. Colonial New York still holds many secrets of the nation's founding history. When an 18th-century merchant cargo ship was discovered six stories underground below the World Trade Center near where Hamilton lived, worked and is memorialized, an historian hired by the New York Port Authority which owned the site and the ship's remains, declared that her history will never be known. But her history, a complex history, was found. I researched and found a very complex Founder's history. When the past is viewed though the lenses of the present, be it rap music and a nonwhite cast, or finding the Americans, enslaved and free, who supported the Founders, our history is diverse.
2
It is inevitable that if any work of art is popular and successful enough, an army of these professional nit-pickers and faultfinders will emerge to devourer it. Any life or history rarely fits naturally into a narrative arch without some form of contrivance, which explains why history books and scholarly treatises are such lousy reads.
That and they're edited to death.
That and they're edited to death.
Good grief....the entire cast is of color. Yet some one says it makes the founding of the nation's seem like an all white affair! Do the actors walk around with signs saying I know I am black but Aaron Burr was white!?
It's a play. I have my problems with it but really people really do need to get a grip.
It's a play. I have my problems with it but really people really do need to get a grip.
I read Chernow's "Hamilton" before going to see the performance and "Hamilton" the musical closely follows the book and basically makes the same points. Chernow has a very positive view of Hamilton as does Lin-Manuel Miranda. But Chernow delves very deeply into the complexity and nuance of the period and of the man, and amazingly so do Mr. Miranda's brilliant songs and characterizations. As for the multi-ethnic casting, it works with the hop-hop style music and comes across as fresh, un-stuffy, accessible, and sincere. I really think folks should read the book and see the show before making any judgements. And if anyone feels there is more to say, and there always is, they can also create something that will express those ideas.
1
I struggle to think of a piece of pop culture art that inspires so much interest in American History in the past few decades, perhaps as far back as Alex Haley's "Roots" to find something on the same level.
So to nitpick the inevitable minor inaccuracies and peccadillos is utterly ridiculous and in fact counterproductive towards the amazing public good Mr. Miranda has gifted us.
That doesn't mean it can't be criticized.
So let's hear the criticism. The real criticism. Not the mediocre "criticism" in this article.
So to nitpick the inevitable minor inaccuracies and peccadillos is utterly ridiculous and in fact counterproductive towards the amazing public good Mr. Miranda has gifted us.
That doesn't mean it can't be criticized.
So let's hear the criticism. The real criticism. Not the mediocre "criticism" in this article.
4
In the slave states, abolitionists were called "n***** thieves" because slaves were private property and any law that freed them was seen as government theft of private property. So these founders who were so into defending property rights, even the ones who were against slavery were in some sense at the time building a defense for it that would be used later on.
I wish there was a way I could visit a page on the internet - any page at all - that didn't have a link to some story about Hamilton.
Nobody quoted in this article gets the joke about the musical "Alexander Hamilton: Honorary Minority." The show caters to exactly what wealthy white New York liberals want to see: nonwhites defending Wall Street. It’s the Obama of musicals.
The popularity among Manhattanites, Brooklynites, current and former Treasury secretaries, and tourists who can afford tickets starting at $325 for a show depicting American history's most brilliant reactionary elitist as a Person of Color reminds me of a February 13, 2016 article in the New York Times:
'“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow,” Mrs. Clinton asked the audience of black, white and Hispanic union members, “would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community?,” she said, using an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. “Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?” At each question, the crowd called back with a resounding no.'
The popularity among Manhattanites, Brooklynites, current and former Treasury secretaries, and tourists who can afford tickets starting at $325 for a show depicting American history's most brilliant reactionary elitist as a Person of Color reminds me of a February 13, 2016 article in the New York Times:
'“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow,” Mrs. Clinton asked the audience of black, white and Hispanic union members, “would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community?,” she said, using an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. “Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?” At each question, the crowd called back with a resounding no.'
When Miranda first posted bits from his yet unproduced musical I challenged the line he attributes to AARON BURR:
'How does a bastard, orphan, son of a whore and a Scotsman..."
He defended it by explaining that he was playing the role of Hamilton's arch enemy but identifying Hamilton as the bastardized son of a whore results from the racist point of view of Ron Chernow who denies what everyone in Nevis knows about Alexander Hamilton (https://www.academia.edu/3799147/A_Light_on_Alexander_Hamilton). It may fit a narrative that the rap artist can identify with but it is completely false. Rachel was an abused wife and the victim of a while male dominate court system in the Caribbean during the colonial period. She raised her two sons alone and quite successfully. She introduced her son to the world of finance in St. Kitts and Nevis where they worked in the Jewish accounting firms that managed the commerce of what was called Sugar City. He was so brilliant his trip to New York was financed by his St. Kitts and Nevis employers.
'How does a bastard, orphan, son of a whore and a Scotsman..."
He defended it by explaining that he was playing the role of Hamilton's arch enemy but identifying Hamilton as the bastardized son of a whore results from the racist point of view of Ron Chernow who denies what everyone in Nevis knows about Alexander Hamilton (https://www.academia.edu/3799147/A_Light_on_Alexander_Hamilton). It may fit a narrative that the rap artist can identify with but it is completely false. Rachel was an abused wife and the victim of a while male dominate court system in the Caribbean during the colonial period. She raised her two sons alone and quite successfully. She introduced her son to the world of finance in St. Kitts and Nevis where they worked in the Jewish accounting firms that managed the commerce of what was called Sugar City. He was so brilliant his trip to New York was financed by his St. Kitts and Nevis employers.
Hamilton was a man of great talent and energy. He made his own way in the world, was an excellent military officer, he was right about the National Bank, and until recently has never received his due. However, I was unable to get very far into Chernow's biography before tiring of his constant announcement of just how brilliant and wonderful Hamilton was. David McCullough, in "John Adams", seems to be the only recent biographer of a "founding father" who wasn't infatuated with his subject.
1
Am I the only one who loves being inspired by the musical, while knowing it is just that, a musical-- and also reading the debate about historical accuracy? The point that Hamilton makes very well, is that not everything is included in the narrative. Lin Miranda chose a narrative for Broadway, and it works. Kudos to him! He is also giving historians to discuss Hamilton in the NY Times. Everybody wins!
1
As of late, it has seemed that the Hamilton naysayers are emerging to tear down the edifice of play, of phenomenon. Hamilton is not perfect history. Hamilton made a misstep in their casting call. Hamilton tickets are expensive. Despite the criticism, the reality is that the play is damn great. It makes us feel good. Patriotic in the way would should feel proud to be Americans. Miranda has done remarkably well staying humble, respectful, and generous. The entire cast is likewise in awe of the response and handle it with such grace. People want to cast stones, because that's what they do. Hamilton is good for us. It is the best of us. In the age of Trump and Cruz, it gives me hope.
This is what happens when you cut Arts education, otherwise intelligent people wasting everybody's time treating a work for theater as if it's supposed to be a history lesson.
"Hamilton" is entertainment, it is not meant to be a historical analysis of the times or the man. Actually Miranda is of Caribbean descent (Puerto Rico) as was Hamilton (Nevis) so there is some connection in the immigrant experience. Yes, I know Miranda was born in New York. If the play encourages people to research history and learn more about Hamilton as well as the other Founding Fathers, how is this a bad thing? The scholars should use the play as an opportunity to draw people into history instead of pushing them away with long boring critiques.
Facts Matter! The idea of Hamilton as abolitionist is laughable. "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
— The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, directed by John Ford
— The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, directed by John Ford
Of course it's a simplification of the the person, focusing on the more interesting facets of his life; it is entertainment, not a history seminar.
1
"Hamilton the man has 'gotten a free pass'" says Waldstreicher.
Well heavens! We can't let that happen -- any white man engaged in the founding of the United States (and it turns out they were all white men) must be evil, so let's vilify him for his actions, inactions and perceived thoughts by today's judges, juries and character executioners -- the academic revisionist historians.
Well heavens! We can't let that happen -- any white man engaged in the founding of the United States (and it turns out they were all white men) must be evil, so let's vilify him for his actions, inactions and perceived thoughts by today's judges, juries and character executioners -- the academic revisionist historians.
To win the Revolution, the Continental Congress had borrowed from the French and Dutch and issued millions in fiat money, called “continentals”, to citizens who helped to fight the British. The value of these IOUs had sunk to a few pennies on the dollar in the period since the war.
Jefferson was absent for almost the entire first year of Washington's presidency, in Europe negotiating the debt repayment to the French and Dutch.
Hamilton devised a scheme involving his banking cronies throughout the colonies. He would, on Jan. 14, 1790, issue a "Report on the Public Credit” to Congress, announcing, among other things, full payment for those long-forgotten “continentals”. Knowing about this in advance, however, Hamilton and his cronies sent scouts throughout the colonies and purchased - for pennies on the dollar - the decaying and moldering “continentals” laying dormant throughout the country.
So when the congressional announcement was issued, Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, issued full payment for those “continentals”, now held by him and his banking friends, and they all got wealthier than they already were, while those regular civilians who had fought and died for this country were left with pennies.
When Jefferson finally did return from Europe he was aghast and would forever be enemies with Hamilton ultimately culminating in the famous Burr-Hamilton duel.
Jefferson was absent for almost the entire first year of Washington's presidency, in Europe negotiating the debt repayment to the French and Dutch.
Hamilton devised a scheme involving his banking cronies throughout the colonies. He would, on Jan. 14, 1790, issue a "Report on the Public Credit” to Congress, announcing, among other things, full payment for those long-forgotten “continentals”. Knowing about this in advance, however, Hamilton and his cronies sent scouts throughout the colonies and purchased - for pennies on the dollar - the decaying and moldering “continentals” laying dormant throughout the country.
So when the congressional announcement was issued, Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, issued full payment for those “continentals”, now held by him and his banking friends, and they all got wealthier than they already were, while those regular civilians who had fought and died for this country were left with pennies.
When Jefferson finally did return from Europe he was aghast and would forever be enemies with Hamilton ultimately culminating in the famous Burr-Hamilton duel.
Lost in the claim that the play, while employing black actors, has no black characters, is the possibility that Hamilton, himself, may have been a descendant of an African slave. Hamilton's paternity is uncertain, and John Adams once referred to him as a "creole bas***d."
Hamilton was a defender of the intellectual capabilities of African slaves, and he may have been proof of that capability.
Hamilton was a defender of the intellectual capabilities of African slaves, and he may have been proof of that capability.
If Mr Lin-Manuel followed Mr Chernow's biography, I am ok with the historical aspects.
The key is how did LM make a hit play from it.
Hope it gets to California soon.
The key is how did LM make a hit play from it.
Hope it gets to California soon.
Anything produced on Broadway will "Whitewash" history and it's ugly legacy. I am interested in seeing Hamilton for the holes in the story.
I have a good "octogenarian" friend who wants to emphasize how this country was made; how the blacks fought, created and evolved this country into what it is today.
Not only is it not in the history books, there are so many holes everywhere, it's hard to piece together. A little unknown Black man who is now deceased has pieced this material together.. He was given an honorary doctorate, and hopefully his story will be told.
Our Congressman has avoided talking with us. We'd like a park that is involved to be recognized. Hamilton has opened a door. I agree with Gordon-Reed, Foner, Bernstein, Monteiro and Chernow. I appreciate Hamilton for what it brings, however it will take an American historian to really understand and tell the story.
I have a good "octogenarian" friend who wants to emphasize how this country was made; how the blacks fought, created and evolved this country into what it is today.
Not only is it not in the history books, there are so many holes everywhere, it's hard to piece together. A little unknown Black man who is now deceased has pieced this material together.. He was given an honorary doctorate, and hopefully his story will be told.
Our Congressman has avoided talking with us. We'd like a park that is involved to be recognized. Hamilton has opened a door. I agree with Gordon-Reed, Foner, Bernstein, Monteiro and Chernow. I appreciate Hamilton for what it brings, however it will take an American historian to really understand and tell the story.
From the article: "More than one scholar has marveled at the show’s detailed presentation of the founding period’s complicated politics — not to mention the way Mr. Miranda’s dazzling rap lyrics pull off rhymes like 'line of credit' and 'financial diuretic.'"
I like the show, but to me this is not a rhyme. I'm not sure if it even qualifies as a slant rhyme.
I like the show, but to me this is not a rhyme. I'm not sure if it even qualifies as a slant rhyme.
I was facepalming my way through this article.
A small piece of advice to the academic historians quoted here: get a sense of humor, and while at it, a life, folks.
A small piece of advice to the academic historians quoted here: get a sense of humor, and while at it, a life, folks.
Of course, distorted history is always funny.
1
I thought I had read that White persons cannot play persons of color but the reverse is not a problem
Hard to keep up these days with the rules of racial integrity and dramaturgy
-
Interpreting the past, via the present, is called 'presentism,' and is usually A Bad Thing, although some human verities are eternal
-
The young country, ours, was founded by our Const, which was adopted when various writers published the Federalist Papers , in daily newspapers, to explain and advocate the adoption
The literacy there, and cognitive and political complexity, is way beyond anything we could publish and promulgate today, although we still argue about it, what they mean and if we should care, since we make it up as we go along anyway
Like Eliza Doolittle of Broadways' My Fair Lady - "words words words I'm so sick of words"
-
Good thing we 2016 folks were not there 1789, we'd be, what still in the swamps painting ourselves blue (oh wait that was the very early English), don't know what we would be now, alternate history,
- -
As a real history exercise, convert Federalist Papers to 140 character in twit-speak, or in emojis
and create a country that ENDED slavery in a single lifetime 1789 to 1865, 76 years a SINGLE lifetime
I'll get the popcorn, you park the hoverboard
-
Hamilton himself! could star in the X-rated version, he had an X-rated life, which led to an early and violent death, somewhat indirectly
Shoulda had gun control
See! see!
ITYS!
Hard to keep up these days with the rules of racial integrity and dramaturgy
-
Interpreting the past, via the present, is called 'presentism,' and is usually A Bad Thing, although some human verities are eternal
-
The young country, ours, was founded by our Const, which was adopted when various writers published the Federalist Papers , in daily newspapers, to explain and advocate the adoption
The literacy there, and cognitive and political complexity, is way beyond anything we could publish and promulgate today, although we still argue about it, what they mean and if we should care, since we make it up as we go along anyway
Like Eliza Doolittle of Broadways' My Fair Lady - "words words words I'm so sick of words"
-
Good thing we 2016 folks were not there 1789, we'd be, what still in the swamps painting ourselves blue (oh wait that was the very early English), don't know what we would be now, alternate history,
- -
As a real history exercise, convert Federalist Papers to 140 character in twit-speak, or in emojis
and create a country that ENDED slavery in a single lifetime 1789 to 1865, 76 years a SINGLE lifetime
I'll get the popcorn, you park the hoverboard
-
Hamilton himself! could star in the X-rated version, he had an X-rated life, which led to an early and violent death, somewhat indirectly
Shoulda had gun control
See! see!
ITYS!
2
Haven't seen or heard Hamilton as of yet, but as an avowed Adamsian I tend not to view him in glowing terms.
It was the Hamiltonian wing of the Federalists who cooked up the Alien and Sedition acts, and who were most eager to become involved in a war against France.
And it Hamilton himself who, after Adams and John Marshall managed to negotiate an agreement avoiding war, turns his wing of the Federalists against a President from his own party up for reelection who dared to put the national interest ahead of these reckless warmongers' partisan interest.
Gore Vidal has even suggested that Hamilton could have been a British agent.
Given this country's endemic attraction to violence, it is perhaps understandable that Hamilton has been transformed into a mythic figure - but that too is nothing to celebrate.
It was the Hamiltonian wing of the Federalists who cooked up the Alien and Sedition acts, and who were most eager to become involved in a war against France.
And it Hamilton himself who, after Adams and John Marshall managed to negotiate an agreement avoiding war, turns his wing of the Federalists against a President from his own party up for reelection who dared to put the national interest ahead of these reckless warmongers' partisan interest.
Gore Vidal has even suggested that Hamilton could have been a British agent.
Given this country's endemic attraction to violence, it is perhaps understandable that Hamilton has been transformed into a mythic figure - but that too is nothing to celebrate.
Of course the founders were pro-slavery. They were British first.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/12/british-history-slavery-bur...
Even George Orwell's family - yes, that Orwell - owned slaves. I don't hear much static about that never getting mentioned today. In fact, it's Orwellian.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/12/british-history-slavery-bur...
Even George Orwell's family - yes, that Orwell - owned slaves. I don't hear much static about that never getting mentioned today. In fact, it's Orwellian.
7
I'm sorry, you are wrong. They were not British. They were American born under British control, thereby British "subjects". That was how the entire country got started. George Washington's parents were born here, so things go a ways back further than what you think. None of the Founding Father's spoke with an English accent. Rather what was spoken in England at the time resembled more of an American accent now. But yes, if one wants to pin the Slave Trade on anyone, the biggest and most ruthless of them all were the British.
I'm so sorry. They must have been Native Americans, then. But America didn't even exist until the American Revolution, which must have just a simple misunderstanding. It seems like a lot of trouble for nothing. I'm totally confused.
What does this have to do with Orwell the writer? You are dismissing Orwell because you disagree with him. Sneer sneer.
Casting black and Latino actors as the founders seems rather derivative to me of Quentin Tarantino and his historical dreamscapes in which the deserving finally get their comeuppances at the hands of those whom they mistreated. But which is the more dramatic statement? A multi-ethnic American founders generation or “Inglourious Basterds”? Or “Django Unchained”? Frankly, for what-might-have-beens I’ll take Tarantino.
Alexander Hamilton was one of the most conflicted of our founders, a man of raging ambitions and not-very-subtle and just as raging insecurities rising from his low birth amid a group of landed grandees who were more central founders – and he was very young indeed during the Revolution (21 in 1776). His anti-slavery stance was about as energetic as he could away with in an early Republic that was so dominated by the South while he was still alive, under Washington and Jefferson; and that energy was far more nuanced and intellectual than the play is said to communicate. I haven’t seen it yet, and don’t know that I will – I probably know too much about Hamilton to really enjoy it.
The best treatment I’ve ever seen of Hamilton was Gore Vidal’s, a fictional but pretty well-researched one in the historical flashbacks we were offered in “Burr”. Not a lot about black and Latino co-founders came through in THAT character treatment. However, if this spectacle gets our kids and even adults excited about American history, I’m all for it, historical pedantry aside.
Alexander Hamilton was one of the most conflicted of our founders, a man of raging ambitions and not-very-subtle and just as raging insecurities rising from his low birth amid a group of landed grandees who were more central founders – and he was very young indeed during the Revolution (21 in 1776). His anti-slavery stance was about as energetic as he could away with in an early Republic that was so dominated by the South while he was still alive, under Washington and Jefferson; and that energy was far more nuanced and intellectual than the play is said to communicate. I haven’t seen it yet, and don’t know that I will – I probably know too much about Hamilton to really enjoy it.
The best treatment I’ve ever seen of Hamilton was Gore Vidal’s, a fictional but pretty well-researched one in the historical flashbacks we were offered in “Burr”. Not a lot about black and Latino co-founders came through in THAT character treatment. However, if this spectacle gets our kids and even adults excited about American history, I’m all for it, historical pedantry aside.
12
Really, Richard Luettgen, saying you think something is "rather" derivative when you haven't seen it sounds rather like hubris. I liked Gore Vidal's "Burr" a lot but i assure you, as he always does Vidal rather gives into whimsy and self-delight than does Miranda. Rather. Me, I am rather delighted you probably won't see it, not because you know so much about Hamilton -- I assure you that every night there are many who know more while also having the capacity to enjoy a work of genius and joy and classic tragedy -- but because it would be such a shame to waste a seat on someone who already knows [sic] he'll take Tarantino over the topic of the day that he has not even seen.
I haven't seen it -- ticket prices alone exclude literally 99% of the population -- though I've seen clips & interviews with Mr. Miranda. He alone is so handsome, articulate & charming that no doubt it has an effect on audiences. The show is tremendous theatre. But I believe much of the enthusiasm is for this "multi-culti" version of US History, that dovetails neatly with lefty liberal ideals -- wouldn't it have been super if our Founding Fathers were perfectly mixed group of all races? if the only bad guy was a WHITE king?
A kid who gets excited by this, THEN finds out that the real Alexander Hamilton was just another WASPy white guy, is going to have a major disappointment. And lose interest ASAP.
The analogy of Tarantino films is apt. If you saw those at a formative age, without much background (US schools do an especially abysmal job of teaching history) and THEN later found out that gee, apparently the Jews did NOT rise up to revengefully murder their Nazi oppressors....and gee, handsome escaped slaves did not return to the Plantation & summarily execute the slaveowners & their families in bloodbaths (with the help of some random German dude, couldn't even figure that one out myself). Indeed, had some Jewish European in 1943 -- or some black slave -- remotely done even one killing like this, they'd have been dead; tortured, gassed or lynched. Gee, not a fun story at all.
A kid who gets excited by this, THEN finds out that the real Alexander Hamilton was just another WASPy white guy, is going to have a major disappointment. And lose interest ASAP.
The analogy of Tarantino films is apt. If you saw those at a formative age, without much background (US schools do an especially abysmal job of teaching history) and THEN later found out that gee, apparently the Jews did NOT rise up to revengefully murder their Nazi oppressors....and gee, handsome escaped slaves did not return to the Plantation & summarily execute the slaveowners & their families in bloodbaths (with the help of some random German dude, couldn't even figure that one out myself). Indeed, had some Jewish European in 1943 -- or some black slave -- remotely done even one killing like this, they'd have been dead; tortured, gassed or lynched. Gee, not a fun story at all.
1
Richard, the only difference between you and William F. is that he used better words to disguise his extreme right wing agenda. Being wordy and ponderous is a poor way to communicate, as well as pretending to be tolerant by mentioning writers (Vidal) you despise.
"Senators for life"!! Isn't that what we have today with career politicians such as Schumer who have no other skills in life other than being a politician. I finf it silly that we have people of color portraying the founding fathers. Are we carrying PC to far?
9
We have had even worse before. Cartoon characters portraying the historical John Smith, Pocahontas et al. Sacrilege. Whatever were they thinking?
1
History?! Hamilton?! No one cares anymore! If it's a myth or not! As long as it's entertainment.
6
Color me skeptical when it comes to the historic accuracy of this Alexander Hamilton portrayal.
Do people know anything about Ron Chernow's book upon which this spectacular piece of grand entertainment is based? (He's not quite Ann Coulter, but he's not oceans removed from her either.)
Sorry, but I'm very, very put off by any play so gushingly praised by Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynn, who has spent years trying to suppress and control the American history taught in our high schools due to what she claims is its "Anti-American bias" and "very negative view" of the United States.
That's all I need to know. If I ever DO see "Hamilton" it will be some time after the Hollywood screen version is made, and shown for free on one website or another.
Do people know anything about Ron Chernow's book upon which this spectacular piece of grand entertainment is based? (He's not quite Ann Coulter, but he's not oceans removed from her either.)
Sorry, but I'm very, very put off by any play so gushingly praised by Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynn, who has spent years trying to suppress and control the American history taught in our high schools due to what she claims is its "Anti-American bias" and "very negative view" of the United States.
That's all I need to know. If I ever DO see "Hamilton" it will be some time after the Hollywood screen version is made, and shown for free on one website or another.
8
You need a better frame of reference than Dick Cheney for ANYTHING.
3
President Obama, Vice President Biden, Justice Breyer saw and praised the show, before the Cheneys. Hardly Ann Coulter fans.
One would have to look long and hard to find so many foolish comments by eminent academics, as are gathered together in this piece. It takes a very special sort of stupidity to describe Hamilton, a penniless orphan (or, as John Adams put it,a creole Bastard), as Sean Wilentz does, as "more of a man for the 1 percent than the 99 percent"and. . . "Turning him into an up from under hero seems dissonant amidst the politiccs of 2016." Just so, but that is precisely what what Lin-Manuel's genius has done with "Hamilton". Academic scribblers have always had an uneasy relationship with genius.
There is much, much more. But perhaps the prize should go to Ms. Schlusser herself for her aside that Hamiltons politics "were not necessarily as in tune with contemporary progressive values as audiences leaving the theater might assume". What consummate silliness; had they been, the audience would have left after the first act.
There is much, much more. But perhaps the prize should go to Ms. Schlusser herself for her aside that Hamiltons politics "were not necessarily as in tune with contemporary progressive values as audiences leaving the theater might assume". What consummate silliness; had they been, the audience would have left after the first act.
17
Wilentz has become (and possibly always was) more a caricature of an academic -- from this, to Snowden, to Obama in 2008 -- conflating often poorly-reasoned counter-current polemic with bold truth-telling, trading on his Princeton affiliation.
"It takes a very special sort of stupidity to describe Hamilton, a penniless orphan (or, as John Adams put it,a creole Bastard), as Sean Wilentz does, as "more of a man for the 1 percent than the 99 percent"and. . ."
Interesting. Are you claiming that because someone was BORN poor and disadvantaged that they're somehow unable to sell out and become an obsequious, groveling toady and errand boy for the wealthy and powerful in their adult lives?
Richard Nixon, Newt Gingrich, John Kasich, and George Wallace are just four of the many right-wing politicians in the last half century who grew up poor or lower middle class but then became adults who were so obsessed with their own advancement that they gleefully advocated for policies that made the lives of the people they grew up with that much worse.
Are you actually unaware that this type of thing---growing up in a low income home, but then working actively to join the very people responsible for your youthful struggles---is not at all uncommon? Or are you just pretending to be so woefully uninformed in an effort to make someone whose views you dislike appear "foolish" or "stupid?"
Interesting. Are you claiming that because someone was BORN poor and disadvantaged that they're somehow unable to sell out and become an obsequious, groveling toady and errand boy for the wealthy and powerful in their adult lives?
Richard Nixon, Newt Gingrich, John Kasich, and George Wallace are just four of the many right-wing politicians in the last half century who grew up poor or lower middle class but then became adults who were so obsessed with their own advancement that they gleefully advocated for policies that made the lives of the people they grew up with that much worse.
Are you actually unaware that this type of thing---growing up in a low income home, but then working actively to join the very people responsible for your youthful struggles---is not at all uncommon? Or are you just pretending to be so woefully uninformed in an effort to make someone whose views you dislike appear "foolish" or "stupid?"
This "entertainment" should tour immediately before the hype dies down and the truth comes out. Within ten minutes after seeing I could not remember a single
tune or melody. It was headache inducing cliff notes of pseudo history without emotion.
tune or melody. It was headache inducing cliff notes of pseudo history without emotion.
8
A Broadway musical takes liberties with the historical narrative! Stop the presses.
If these scholars are serious, they should probably also be investigating the king of Siam, P.T. Barnum, Fiorello LaGuardia, Andrew Jackson and Fanny Brice. For starters.
If these scholars are serious, they should probably also be investigating the king of Siam, P.T. Barnum, Fiorello LaGuardia, Andrew Jackson and Fanny Brice. For starters.
156
Not to mention all those singing cats! Memoreeees
1
But we're all still agreed that Jesus walked over that swimming pool, right?
1
Probably the Perons as well.
1
I'm not entirely sure that LaFayette and Jefferson resembled each other so much either.
16
Poor Lin-Manuel. Success is its own worst enemy. To paraphrase the great George Thorogood: Backlash!? You're lucky you're not getting any front lash. it's a great show.
5
Good for Miranda, good for the historians and good for all of us. Any piece of writing, especially academic writing, can be part of a longer conversation. We talk about it, learn from it, and enjoy it. And the best part of this particular scholarly exercise is that it has a catchy soundtrack to make it more interesting.
10
Jefferson was a Universal Man, Hamilton was not. Although Hamitlon was very clever, he was also very elitist, a smug 1% for his time; he distrusted the Commoon Man and therefore is very un-American. I think this is the real reason we are loathe to embrace him today, and we still lover Jefferson, warts and all.
9
Oh, please! Nobody I know is "loathe to embrace" Hamilton - and Jefferson was hypocritical enough for several lifetimes.
2
"The people , sir, are a great beast, " so saith Hamilton. Along with the rest of the founders, he was fearful of majority rule. If it weren't for the British example, he would have supported a king. George Washington, the richest man in the colonies, came close. Back to Hamilton, he traded in slaves , he started the national bank, which farmers and working people hated. Later it was ended by Andrew Jackson. If the play ,"Hamiltonian" wanted a man of the people, a progressive, they should have chosen Tom Paine.
7
facts and truth no longer matter, people create their own reality instead of acknowledging the past, whatever it was, and affect the future in a positive way
these people are not in majority, not yet, but once they become, this country will cease to become great
these people are not in majority, not yet, but once they become, this country will cease to become great
1
Already we have been drained of our once-great natural resources of capital letters, most punctuation, and a critical thought process that filters premises with no grounding in reality and non sequiturs before they make it anywhere near the outbound mental exit.
Without these, this country will cease to become (which, erroneously, references a possible future state, not the past, but is necessary for rhetorical symmetry) great. I have added some from my own stock here for your benefit.
Without these, this country will cease to become (which, erroneously, references a possible future state, not the past, but is necessary for rhetorical symmetry) great. I have added some from my own stock here for your benefit.
1
Let me just say, it's a great show, and Miranda worked hard to get it right, but i have to also say that what historians do is a beautiful thing, the carefully crafted arguments, the nuance, the digging up evidence, the decades steeped in another time, collaborating and occasionally clashing with other historians. it's a real profession, folks, and when someone sets up camp on their turf they get to say stuff.
The problem with saying "It's just a Broadway musical" or "He has artistic license" or "We know it's not supposed to be accurate" is that people walk out feeling as if they know something, but they don't know what's true and what's made up.
So you have the spectacle of Bernie Sanders seeing this lionization of someone who created the big banks, and clearly voted for the war - and he's enthralled. Plato was right.
The problem with saying "It's just a Broadway musical" or "He has artistic license" or "We know it's not supposed to be accurate" is that people walk out feeling as if they know something, but they don't know what's true and what's made up.
So you have the spectacle of Bernie Sanders seeing this lionization of someone who created the big banks, and clearly voted for the war - and he's enthralled. Plato was right.
12
No, it says more about Bernie Sanders than it does about the show. Most of us leave "Hamilton" wanting to read more & learn more about Hamilton and the founding of this country.
1
I think it was Isaac Asimov who said it: "Critics are like eunuchs in the harem, they can tell you what's wrong, but they can't do it themselves."
60
Hmmmm...
Shouldn't your question be:
Are audiences to Hamilton led to believe that Alexander Hamilton was a Founding Father who was also a Latino/African-American who could rap with the best of them during the founding of our republic?
I somehow don't think the point is historical accuracy.
Shouldn't your question be:
Are audiences to Hamilton led to believe that Alexander Hamilton was a Founding Father who was also a Latino/African-American who could rap with the best of them during the founding of our republic?
I somehow don't think the point is historical accuracy.
27
“3 Quoted Historians Disagree With 3 Other Quoted Historians” might be a more apt headline, or perhaps: “Newsflash: Difference Discovered Between Broadway Musicals & Academic History Books!” Not sure this is a page one story. I suggest some of these historians spend a bit more time studying the art & craft of creating theater and a bit less time trying to jump onto the “Hamilton” bandwagon as contrarians. At least the quoted detractors can all seem to tell the difference between history and theater:
- Gordon-Reed: “It’s an amazing piece of theater”
- Waldstreicher: “all its redemptive and smart aspects”
- Monteiro: “I loved it, it was amazing. … Yeah! Oh yeah, as a theatrical production, it’s incredible. As a Broadway musical, it’s amazing and deserves all the credit it gets.” - Slate.com
- Gordon-Reed: “It’s an amazing piece of theater”
- Waldstreicher: “all its redemptive and smart aspects”
- Monteiro: “I loved it, it was amazing. … Yeah! Oh yeah, as a theatrical production, it’s incredible. As a Broadway musical, it’s amazing and deserves all the credit it gets.” - Slate.com
12
Hamilton was an unabashed monarchist who tried to destroy the first amendment 8 years after it was created. And in some ways Jefferson was far more liberal (he believed in actual equal rights and representation for non-elites). None of them line up perfectly with our ideals, but to suggest that today Hamilton would be a "liberal icon" is absolutely absurd. He'd be more of an elitist than H.W. Bush.
4
It does make me wonder if some of this is not the revisionism inherent in lefty interpretations of that historical era -- that today it is very popular to diss Jefferson, whose incredible talent and genius is now scorned because he owned slaves (in an era when that was completely normal and expected). If Jefferson can't be one of the heroes of the American Revolution, then we need someone else. And who better than a Caribbean born, mixed race Latino hip-hop spouting Hamilton? Imagine if the real Hamilton were nearly this good looking or charismatic! Imagine if the Founding Fathers really had a member who was so multi-culti and "politically correct"! It would be cool, wouldn't it?
1
For god’s sake. it’s musical theatre. America’s silliest ‘art’ form.
Guarantee that 90% of the theater goers don’t even know Hamilton is on the ten dollar bill.
Guarantee that 90% of the theater goers don’t even know Hamilton is on the ten dollar bill.
16
It's ironic that Hamilton should be honored for his role in the founding of the country considered that he never really trusted democracy. One feels he would have endorsed any efforts to limit voting to those he considered worthy of it.
And I haven't seen "Hamilton" so I don't know how it deals with the duel but the idea that Burr should have known that Hamilton's shot was meant to go wide, as we so frequently hear, is ludicrous. He didn't shoot straight up in the air or into the ground that would have made such an intention clear.
As Abbie Hoffman used to say, Burr has been so denigrated in American history because he was too good a shot.
And I haven't seen "Hamilton" so I don't know how it deals with the duel but the idea that Burr should have known that Hamilton's shot was meant to go wide, as we so frequently hear, is ludicrous. He didn't shoot straight up in the air or into the ground that would have made such an intention clear.
As Abbie Hoffman used to say, Burr has been so denigrated in American history because he was too good a shot.
2
Actually Burr was a pretty bad shot... It took Hamilton a day to die a slow and painful death. But yes, he legitimately believed he was being shot at.
2
This is a play. Wish fulfilment. Revisionism. A dream state. It makes people feel good. It rights the wrongs. Is it true history. No.
3
Let's add to the inevitability of death and taxes, the following: an article bemoaning rent stabilization in the NYT once a month; an article seeing the downside of everything Bernie Sanders does daily, and an article about Hamilton weekly! Enough already!
9
Folks, I hate to break it to you...but it's a Broadway MUSICAL!
It's a work of art. It's not a history treatise.
Perhaps Playbill needs to come with a "trigger warning" telling playgoers that they are about to see a work of fiction loosely based on the life of a man named "Alexander Hamilton" and that they have fifteen minutes before the curtain goes up in case they have mistakenly wandered in from the NY Historical Society.
"Talk less. Smile more." Really... smile. It's fun. It's wonderful. There will not be an exam at the end of the show.
It's a work of art. It's not a history treatise.
Perhaps Playbill needs to come with a "trigger warning" telling playgoers that they are about to see a work of fiction loosely based on the life of a man named "Alexander Hamilton" and that they have fifteen minutes before the curtain goes up in case they have mistakenly wandered in from the NY Historical Society.
"Talk less. Smile more." Really... smile. It's fun. It's wonderful. There will not be an exam at the end of the show.
396
Wait! Are you telling me Camelot wasn't real?
24
Hilarious and SPOT ON! I believe these historians are just plain jealous that LMM's managed to make history wildly entertaining. Bunch of spoil sports.
1
It's not playgoers who have a problem, it's the critics and academics.
Folks, history is as alive as the future is since humanity is still evolving. As a long-time admirer of Alexander Hamilton as someone who gave a significant direction to the young United States, for the last 60 years I have lived with the historically accepted view of Hamilton as a solid conservative.
I knew that to be largely incorrect, but it took Mr. Chernow and Mr. Miranda to educate the rest of the country that Hamilton was a much more complex person and really has many traits of what we'd call a liberal today. The bottom line: read history (primary sources are best), analyze historical trends and movements, and reach your own conclusions. Hamilton and Jefferson would have both strongly agreed that we need an educated population.
PS: Mrs. Hamilton was the co-founder and long-time deputy director of the first orphanage in NYC -- an institution that still exists.
I knew that to be largely incorrect, but it took Mr. Chernow and Mr. Miranda to educate the rest of the country that Hamilton was a much more complex person and really has many traits of what we'd call a liberal today. The bottom line: read history (primary sources are best), analyze historical trends and movements, and reach your own conclusions. Hamilton and Jefferson would have both strongly agreed that we need an educated population.
PS: Mrs. Hamilton was the co-founder and long-time deputy director of the first orphanage in NYC -- an institution that still exists.
151
Funny, I thought the point of the interracial cast, was not to represent or obscure what was, but to show the way our history has grown, how it breathes into our present and to reinforce colorblindness of this generation --which is a part of the play's genius. We all know that George Washington isn't black, but in the play he becomes George Washington, and we don't care. Bravo!! Miranda' brilliance, in part, is the acceptance of all races in all roles, teaching us how color blindness works. Bravo LMM on so many level.
44
what about "appropriating the culture"?
2
History doesn't "grow" to tell us things that are in fact untrue. George Washington wasn't black, anymore than he was a woman. And making the cast black & hispanic, with the King of England the only "white dude" sends a clear message -- one that is incredibly wrong and off-base. It also renders impossible any discussion of slavery, since how would black & hispanic forefathers (and foremothers) have been owning only BLACK slaves?
Does it matter to us adults over 45, who got at least SOME history in high school? Probably not. But a lot of the audience for this show is young people -- and this will be the first exposure for many of them to the beginnings of the US, the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers....and as distorted as you could possibly make it.
If you do "Camelot" with a mixed race cast, or "Cats" or "The Lion King" -- it hardly makes any difference. US history can and SHOULD make a difference for US citizens.
Does it matter to us adults over 45, who got at least SOME history in high school? Probably not. But a lot of the audience for this show is young people -- and this will be the first exposure for many of them to the beginnings of the US, the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers....and as distorted as you could possibly make it.
If you do "Camelot" with a mixed race cast, or "Cats" or "The Lion King" -- it hardly makes any difference. US history can and SHOULD make a difference for US citizens.
1
LOL! Of course, the NY Times ignores the biggest issue here, which is what we would expect, since Broadway has become just another vehicle for propaganda for the big banks and their subservient media.
Hamilton sold out the Revolution to the same British bankers whose mercenaries the colonists had just defeated on the battlefield. The First Bank of the United States was owned by the Bank of England, a privately controlled central bank. Jefferson opposed this, as did Madison, who refused to sign an extension 20 years later, bringing on the War of 1812.
The Brits then attacked U.S. ships in various places and the U.S. went into debt defending itself, which brought on (through bribery etc., the same way it works with today's Congress) the Second Bank of the U.S., which Jackson refused to extend 20 years later, bringing on a promised recession, just as Nicholas Biddle, who ran the banks for the Brits, promised. Jackson survived seven assassination attempts, but he was depicted as despotic a few years back in another musical.
New York is such a parochial theatre scene that if Arthur Miller showed up today, his plays would likely never see the lights of Broadway.
Hamilton sold out the Revolution to the same British bankers whose mercenaries the colonists had just defeated on the battlefield. The First Bank of the United States was owned by the Bank of England, a privately controlled central bank. Jefferson opposed this, as did Madison, who refused to sign an extension 20 years later, bringing on the War of 1812.
The Brits then attacked U.S. ships in various places and the U.S. went into debt defending itself, which brought on (through bribery etc., the same way it works with today's Congress) the Second Bank of the U.S., which Jackson refused to extend 20 years later, bringing on a promised recession, just as Nicholas Biddle, who ran the banks for the Brits, promised. Jackson survived seven assassination attempts, but he was depicted as despotic a few years back in another musical.
New York is such a parochial theatre scene that if Arthur Miller showed up today, his plays would likely never see the lights of Broadway.
17
Do you really think that Lin-Manuel Miranda and the other creators of this show went in with the specific intention of creating "propaganda for the big banks and their subservient media"?
Don't you think that's a little simplistic?
Don't you think that's a little simplistic?
7
"scholars have debated whether “Hamilton” over-glorifies the man, inflating his opposition to slavery while glossing over less attractive aspects of his politics" Ok, people but it's a BROADWAY MUSICAL. And we turn our attention here because currently American history texts in public schools teach critical analyses and complex truths about the full range of historical figures that have shaped our society?? No. Why don't scholar turn their attention to the brainwashing, say, the Texas State Board of Education is in the business of doing? "Hamilton" has stirred people's imagination about American history and lifted up artists of color and doing so, made history. History professors should return the favor and focus on "over-glorification" in their own journals and classrooms.
44
Kind of ridiculous. Surely, the Times knows that entertainment doesn't necessarily coincide with fact.
15
To the other Steve,
The problem is one that I heard Eric Foner highlight about the movie "Lincoln." It was being presented to school children as history not a fictional portrayal of history. I don't believe that Lin-Manuel Miranda is making sure all those school kids get to see "Hamilton" because he feels that they should get to see a popular Broadway musical but because he wants them to be aware of history.
The problem is one that I heard Eric Foner highlight about the movie "Lincoln." It was being presented to school children as history not a fictional portrayal of history. I don't believe that Lin-Manuel Miranda is making sure all those school kids get to see "Hamilton" because he feels that they should get to see a popular Broadway musical but because he wants them to be aware of history.
5
Instead of fretting about the musical, which I will never see, I look forward to reading Mr. Chernow's biography of Hamilton as soon as I finish his biography of Washington. Since their careers were intertwined, I expect to read and learn a lot.
18
I'm astonished at the arrogance of some of the complaints. If others want to write a different version of Hamilton's life, who's stopping them. To tell Moranda how he should have written his (brilliant) work is laughable.
This theatgoer was tremendously moved and enlightened by "Hamilton". I knew the outlines of Hamilton's life, and certainly the history - but, as with all great art, an essential truth was captured in ths musical. Absolutely thrilling
It isn't possible to render Hamilton's extraordinary life AND the decades of the creation of our country AND the conflicts amng the Founding Fathers which defined the shape of the country without leavimg out some events and people
That Miranda captured so much, and conveyed not only the facts but the characters of the era with such truth and such excitement - and in a way that reflects today's America and with fresh insight and understanding - is extraordinary
Someone should tell these (few) critics how silly and jealous and petty they seem (ok, I will)
This theatgoer was tremendously moved and enlightened by "Hamilton". I knew the outlines of Hamilton's life, and certainly the history - but, as with all great art, an essential truth was captured in ths musical. Absolutely thrilling
It isn't possible to render Hamilton's extraordinary life AND the decades of the creation of our country AND the conflicts amng the Founding Fathers which defined the shape of the country without leavimg out some events and people
That Miranda captured so much, and conveyed not only the facts but the characters of the era with such truth and such excitement - and in a way that reflects today's America and with fresh insight and understanding - is extraordinary
Someone should tell these (few) critics how silly and jealous and petty they seem (ok, I will)
68
I agree. When I was in grad school, I had to learn about a variety of different theories proposed by the profession's academics. What a hoot! Some theories of the field (psychology & counseling ) differed by only a word or two, such as 'adolescent' instead of 'teenager.' Talk about needing to make points by getting published! The critiques by some of the professional historians in your article remind me of this. Miranda didn't intend to write a history of the American Revolution - he didn't present a full biography of George Washington, Lafayette, or even Betsy Ross. Where are the women? For that matter, where are all the people over 40? Historians, relax and enjoy already!
2
Interesting how you've said nothing to refute the most substantive and historically accurate criticisms of Hamilton's elitist, pro-Monarchist, and often reactionary politics and policies.
Okay, you liked the singing and the dancing; good for you. I felt the same way about "Call Me Madam" and "Funny Girl" but I wouldn't confuse their main objective---entertaining people in return for their money---with any sort of serious scholarship or historically credible portrayals of their respective protagonists.
Okay, you liked the singing and the dancing; good for you. I felt the same way about "Call Me Madam" and "Funny Girl" but I wouldn't confuse their main objective---entertaining people in return for their money---with any sort of serious scholarship or historically credible portrayals of their respective protagonists.
1
Oh, come on. Hamilton was a monarchist. He wanted Washington made King and, having no male heirs, he, Hamilton, to succeed him. Democracy?
1
love the show, however there is a serious ignoring of Hamilton's role in the speculation on the war debt and other insider trading by the 1% elite of his day. basically loans to pay for the war originally owed to many common folk were bought for pennies on the dollar by the rish and powerful when they were thought to be not going to be paid. then national policy, led by Hamilton, and of course supported by the same rich and powerful decided it was important to pay the debt. while establishing full faith and credit was important, it was also done in a way that was pre-emptive corrupt. the fault lies in Chernows book, which was written in part as a defense of today's conservative/neoliberal wall street crowd.
5
I only know the show from the Broadway recording, but I think Hamilton's arrogance, and even his shadier dealings, are pointed out time and again, by Jefferson, Burr, even Hamilton himself.
Jefferson:
"I get no satisfaction witnessing his fits of passion
The way he primps and preens and dresses like the pits of fashion
Our poorest citizens, our farmers, live ration to ration
As Wall Street robs ‘em blind in search of chips to cash in"
Burr:
"Why do you assume you're the smartest in the room?"
and
"Oh, Wall Street thinks you’re great
You’ll always be adored by the things you create
But upstate—
—people think you’re crooked"
Hamilton admits that he is a "polymath a pain in the ass: a massive pain"
Washington was no saint, either, but I wouldn't change a thing about the way he his part is written or performed.
Jefferson:
"I get no satisfaction witnessing his fits of passion
The way he primps and preens and dresses like the pits of fashion
Our poorest citizens, our farmers, live ration to ration
As Wall Street robs ‘em blind in search of chips to cash in"
Burr:
"Why do you assume you're the smartest in the room?"
and
"Oh, Wall Street thinks you’re great
You’ll always be adored by the things you create
But upstate—
—people think you’re crooked"
Hamilton admits that he is a "polymath a pain in the ass: a massive pain"
Washington was no saint, either, but I wouldn't change a thing about the way he his part is written or performed.
6
It's been constantly stated by Hamilton's creator that this is a show about America's past interpreted and performed by America's present. There is nothing literal about this show -- it is artistic interpretation about American values told with surprising sophistication and depth and which gets citizens involved in something more than a sugar-coated, sanctified idea of "the founding fathers." Miranda could have chosen to have an all-female cast act out this show, but no one would have watched that (unfortunately). Instead, he hit upon a formula that resonates now. It's creative genius. And it's a whole lot more "accurate" if you ask me than Antonin Scalia and his ilk's version of the founders. At least Miranda isn't claiming to read the founders' minds.
313
"Miranda could have chosen to have an all-female cast act out this show, but no one would have watched that (unfortunately)."
You're probably right.
And some say feminism isn't necessary any more.
You're probably right.
And some say feminism isn't necessary any more.
5
Shakespeare in the Park this summer is doing an all-female "Taming of the Shrew."
Happy now?
Happy now?
2
“At least Miranda isn’t claiming to read the founders’ minds.” Nor apparently their writings or those of their biographers.
The Soviet-like totalitarianism of ML believes not a single comment can be written without some pledge of loyalty to the ideology of The Party.
The Soviet-like totalitarianism of ML believes not a single comment can be written without some pledge of loyalty to the ideology of The Party.
Of course it does! Isn't that the purpose of popular culture???
Well the play 'Hamilton' is mailnly for entertainment with dashes of histiry dispersed in it and the reader and auidence should trake it as such, the same applies to all the movies that have been made throughout the decades as well. If one wants true history it will need to fe found in books and documentaries. Still I do hope that the play does allow for Mr. Hamilton to stay on one of our US currency bills, if someone has to be replaced, take it from another person who had lesss to do with our nation's founding and financial institutions.
4
“line of credit” does not rhyme with “financial diuretic.”
2
Yes it does.
10
Hey, it is a play. Let's leave it at that, scholars.
2
Actually it's a musical, not a play.
3
Agree! And what wonderful material. More Founding Fathers. Yours, Cheryl Alexandra Hamilton
I hope we don't lose Hamilton from the $10 bill. Take Jackson off the $20 instead!
94
As it is only the elite in this country who are getting most of the money I suppose that it makes sense to leave one of their own, Hamilton, on money and take one who actually believed in the common people, Jackson, off of it.
Jackson worked himself up from poverty yet didn't turn into an elitist like Hamilton. But Jackson had the bad luck to be a good shot and survive every duel he fought even though he was shot many more times than Hamilton.
Jackson worked himself up from poverty yet didn't turn into an elitist like Hamilton. But Jackson had the bad luck to be a good shot and survive every duel he fought even though he was shot many more times than Hamilton.
3
How about getting rid of BOTH Hamilton from the $10 AND Jackson from the $20? Susan B. Anthony and Theodore Roosevelt would be two good candidates for substitution that come immediately to mind.
I thought Jackson led policies that caused extermination of many native Americans?
1
"The show, which famously began hatching after Mr. Miranda read Ron Chernow’s biography ". Yes, Mr Chernow's book is the only 600+ page book I have ever described as a page turner. Chernow's Hamilton is brilliant, passionate, and forward thinking. Apparently, the show captures this. Once you read the book, you come away thinking 1) we would be nothing as a nation without the revolutionary ideas of Alexander Hamilton 2) Thomas Jefferson - he's got lots and lots of flaws and 3) they better not take Hamilton off of the Ten Dollar Bill - he has so earned it. Maybe when the touring version of the show makes it way to Nashville (probably around 2030) - I will get to see it - Can't wait.
45
Anybody who expects to get educated through entertainment is deluded.
On the other hand, I can't wait to see how "Trump, The Musical" fares ...
Much better than the current script, we can be sure.
On the other hand, I can't wait to see how "Trump, The Musical" fares ...
Much better than the current script, we can be sure.
14
After reading through the comments, and coming to yours, Tony, I realized what people are missing in their criticism of Hamilton: This show is a phenomenon not because it is a history lesson--it has captivated people because it comes with flawed, eager characters, great music, and most importantly, it comes earnestly, without a drop of cynicism. We are starved as a people for something that ties us together. We need stories to weave into our societal fabric. The great Jackson musical was too cynical. It reminded us of the worst of us. Hamilton, what ever the myth making, is about a true American trope: the immigrant, the hard worker, the self-made man. Awesome. We love this story as a people. So this entertainment gives us back our place in the narrative, finds a way to reconcile our founders' fallibilities. The stories we love about history have always been that, stories.
1
Who will play the role of "Orange Hair?"
1
As to race, the musical does an admirable job of drawing the audience into the story to a degree that it all feels normal. One does not think "Gee, that's a black George Washington!" The focus is instead on the ideas, such as "One last time" where Washington enunciates the importance of stepping down instead of trying to rule for life.
That, in no small part, is why Hamilton is a great musical.
That, in no small part, is why Hamilton is a great musical.
17
He was busy co-founding a country.
But Ms. Gordon-Reed, in an interview, said that while Hamilton publicly criticized Jefferson’s views on the biological inferiority of blacks, his record from the 1790s until his death in 1804 includes little to no action against slavery.
But Ms. Gordon-Reed, in an interview, said that while Hamilton publicly criticized Jefferson’s views on the biological inferiority of blacks, his record from the 1790s until his death in 1804 includes little to no action against slavery.
4
Right=on Hawkeye!
1
I'm reminded of "1776" for the audaciousness of it all. Great theatre leads well beyond the experience of the performance. Check any library and ask how many books on Hamilton have been requested in the last nine months--and then other books of relevant history.
Time constraints dictate that historical timelines get fudged (the death of Hamilton's son, for example) and some things are emphasized while others are barely mentioned. The work of fleshing out the story is in our hands.
Time constraints dictate that historical timelines get fudged (the death of Hamilton's son, for example) and some things are emphasized while others are barely mentioned. The work of fleshing out the story is in our hands.
29
The founders, she added, “really didn’t want to create the country we actually live in today.”
That is a terrible generalization to make for a great many reasons, chief among them is that it treats the founders as if they were some sort of monolithic unit, as if they each held the same views and opinions on every subject.
I hate when people pretend the founders all had one plan, one identical vision for the future of America, and then argue about whether or not we have diverged from it.
That is a terrible generalization to make for a great many reasons, chief among them is that it treats the founders as if they were some sort of monolithic unit, as if they each held the same views and opinions on every subject.
I hate when people pretend the founders all had one plan, one identical vision for the future of America, and then argue about whether or not we have diverged from it.
65
Hamilton was killed by gun violence by a fellow politician (Burr) - who also happened to be a disciple of Jeffersons. Jefferson and Burr used the press to destroy Hamilton's reputation because they disagreed with many of his ideas. Smear campaigns in the media and Gun Violence - against a backdrop of State's rights vs. Federal rights? Sure sounds like the type of country we live in today.
4
@Eric C: You are 100% on target with your comment. These historians have their OWN prejudices, their own tiny piece of the story that they nurture in their ivory towers.
"disciple of Jeffersons"
Your description only.
Your description only.
1
I have spent the last 2 weeks listening to the cast album over and over and what amazes me is that, much like "Rent," each time I listen to it, I seem to hear new layers in both the music and the lyrics. And for getting many of us interested in history, props to Mr. Miranda.
40
So tired of hearing about Hamilton.
14
Yet, you want to write about it....
2
I don't think there's any doubt that Mr. Hamilton was an elitist. But looking at the era and understanding that few people had access to the news of the day or even an education, it wasn't much of a stretch to expect the best and brightest to take the lead in society and government.
I suppose this leads into a more realist view of Hamilton interns of race as well. As noted by Mr. Foner (hardly an establishment historian), Mr. Hamilton's views were almost cutting edge when compared to many of the founding fathers. My personal favorite in this regard, ignoring his many other flaws, Ben Franklin was as supportive of democracy and ending slavery as anyone.
I suppose this leads into a more realist view of Hamilton interns of race as well. As noted by Mr. Foner (hardly an establishment historian), Mr. Hamilton's views were almost cutting edge when compared to many of the founding fathers. My personal favorite in this regard, ignoring his many other flaws, Ben Franklin was as supportive of democracy and ending slavery as anyone.
80
I seem to recall that when he wrote his book about John Adams, David McCullough said that he learned that the literacy rate in Massachusetts at the time of the revolution was higher than it is today.
So much for those people being uneducated.
So much for those people being uneducated.
1
No, Franklin was not as open to ending slavery as anyone, and only supported abolition because he was persuaded that it was economically a bad system. He continued to view blacks as inferior, lesser humans. The Tea Party loves Franklin so much because he not only put money before people, but was also an unabashed racist.
Let's have "Franklin: The Musical" next please!
HAMILTON is good theater. Not great but good. Is HAMILTON truthful? It's truthful to itself. It distorts the truth by demeaning other founding fathers to make Hamilton into a hero and comment about race in America. Thats how Miranda deals with the subject. If we don't like his particular brand of fiction, don't pay, don't go.
11
It's also truthful to Mr. Chernow's extensively sourced history, which I guess you haven't read?
If artists kept to the facts they would be called historians and the world would be a very boring place.
32
Terrific theater, not so much terrific history.
11
Thanks to LMM, tens of thousands of kids will actually pay attention to history, at least for a couple of hours. The quibbles about accuracy are a luxury in an era when most people don't even know who the current Vice President is.
84
wow, talk about high expectations
2
I had expected that in this audacious and cutting edge show the creators would deal with Hamilton's gay love for John Laurens. They are presented as deep friends and nothing more. I didn't hold the candle, but there is plenty of evidence in their letters that their relationship being more than the deep friendship portrayed in the show. The argument is that letter-writing in the 18th century was a great deal more flowery, but consider how Hamilton addressed Laurens: " Dear Laurens, it might be in my power, by action rather than words to convince you that I love you. I shall only tell you that 'til you bade us Adieu, I hardly knew the value you had taught my heart to set upon you." Most gay people have been erased from history. "Hamilton" missed an opportunity to take a chance on bringing the founding father out.
2
I'm not saying Hamilton wasn't gay, but what you quoted doesn't really prove anything. Men felt a lot more free in Hamilton's time than they now do to write of their brotherly love for one another.
Weren't they lucky?
Weren't they lucky?
7
Let's see: Hamilton was gay, James Buchanan was gay, Lincoln was gay. Homosexuals apparently did far better in attaining high office during the first hundred years of the country than they do today. I guess all the stories about our country becoming more tolerant of gays is just another piece of phony history.
6
"It’s an odd moment for the public to embrace an unabashed elitist who liked big banks, mistrusted the masses and at one point called for a monarchal presidency and a Senate that served for life."
Liked big banks? You mean, he created the Federal Reserve, understanding that a strong currency, able to finance whatever our young country needed, is an imperative. His romance with monarchies was a passing fad. He was George Washington's right-hand man during most of his campaigns.
In most ways, he was a far-sighted, liberal soul.
As for mistrusting the masses, we see what an angry, undereducated public gets up to.
Liked big banks? You mean, he created the Federal Reserve, understanding that a strong currency, able to finance whatever our young country needed, is an imperative. His romance with monarchies was a passing fad. He was George Washington's right-hand man during most of his campaigns.
In most ways, he was a far-sighted, liberal soul.
As for mistrusting the masses, we see what an angry, undereducated public gets up to.
379
Although Hamilton was in favor of a national bank, the Federal Reserve was established in 1913.
14
Hamilton was an unabashed monarchist who threw out the first amendment, and trampled on uncountable rights when it was convenient for him. In no way shape or form was Hamilton "liberal." Stop drinking the Miranda koolaid.
4
"His romance with monarchies was a passing fad." Okay...when did this "passing fad" begin for Hamilton and when exactly did it end?
More importantly, why would that idea have EVER appealed to someone who helped fight for an independent government from the British monarchy?
And it appears you are conceding that you cannot refute the historical record that Hamilton mistrusted the masses and wanted a Senate that served for life. That omission is quite telling.
More importantly, why would that idea have EVER appealed to someone who helped fight for an independent government from the British monarchy?
And it appears you are conceding that you cannot refute the historical record that Hamilton mistrusted the masses and wanted a Senate that served for life. That omission is quite telling.
1
While I understand the historians comments on the musical, I do believe that the script does show, in many ways, a Hamilton who is very complicated and fairly morally corrupt. My children have certainly had many discussions about his obvious flaws and transgressions. We call the Reynolds pamphlet the first "social media" mistake and we all hold Hamilton largely responsible for his son's death. The show has brought history alive to my children though, and for that I am a fan. Because of the song Yorktown, our recent visit to the battlefield held my 10 year old son in thrall as we acted out Hamilton's actions on Redoubt 10.
195
I am delighted to hear about the reaction of your 10 year old son. If the engaging aspects of Hamilton encourage kids to see history as much more than the activities of dead white men then the inaccuracies don't matter. People should not let quibbles about details take away from the power of the Hamilton experience.
1
His one moral shortcoming was the result of entrapment by thew husband and wife team of blackmailers Marie and Peter Reynolds. It was a personal private lapse and had no public relevance. He explained his folly fully to Monroe a Jeffersonian lackey with the innocence of someone who believed gentlemen would not use private errors in disagreements within public policies.
So NO he was not “fairly morally corrupt”!!!
So NO he was not “fairly morally corrupt”!!!
Obviously, it would be an anathema for children to have fun without it being a 'teachable moment'.
Entertainment is rarely a mirror to history. A good show makes the viewer want to learn more. How many people have read a biography of Hamilton after hearing about the musical Hamilton? I've read two and I haven't even seen the show.
210
While it might not qualify as "entertaining," Faulker's "Absalom, Absalom" tells us more about the poison of slavery than many, perhaps most, historical monographs on the subject. Say, instead, that sometimes art can illuminate history.
4
I can't understand why so many scholars seem to have such a hard time differentiating between history and entertainment. Lin-Manuel Miranda did an admirable job making the musical as historically accurate as possible, and discussed with Chernow any instances in which he had to deviate from historical accuracy for the sake of making things work (and ensuring that the show wasn't 10 hours long.) This is his view of Hamilton's story.
Also, your caption for the Hamilton portrait has to be wrong. This is obviously a portrait of Hamilton as an older man. In 1775 he was only about 20 years old. I believe this is an 1804 engraving, done in the year of his death, by William Rollinson, after Archibald Robertson.
Also, your caption for the Hamilton portrait has to be wrong. This is obviously a portrait of Hamilton as an older man. In 1775 he was only about 20 years old. I believe this is an 1804 engraving, done in the year of his death, by William Rollinson, after Archibald Robertson.
49
The difference is not between entertainment and history, but between fact and fiction.
1
Yes this show glosses over Hamilton the man. He does not deserve to be on the $10 bill. He should be replaced with Harriet Tubman, Oprah or Beyoncé.
33
I was with you till the comma after "Harriet Tubman"...
3
Replace him with Aaron Burr.
5
....of course you're joking....Beyonce, Oprah - lol
1
Overglorifies which man? Lin-Manuel Miranda? Absolutely. You'd think he was the second coming of Christ, given the slavering tongue-bath he's gotten.
17
Jealousy, envy much?
I suggest that before you go trashing LMM, you try and write/compose/put together anything worthwhile. Have you listened to the music/lyrics? It is one thing to say you do not like the musical (to each their own) but 2nd coming of Christ and "slavering tongue-bath?" Really?
I suggest that before you go trashing LMM, you try and write/compose/put together anything worthwhile. Have you listened to the music/lyrics? It is one thing to say you do not like the musical (to each their own) but 2nd coming of Christ and "slavering tongue-bath?" Really?
51
Chernow's book has a Conservative bias.
4
Thank you for stating the very obvious. If you know anything about Mr. Chernow you'd no more trust his book than one written on the same subject by Dick and Lynn Cheney---two BIG fans of this play and Chernow's book, incidentally.
The scholars should be thrilled that Miranda has inspired a while generation of high school students to learn more about American History. I wonder if there will be an uptick in the number of American History majors in the coming years. Wouldn't that be nice.
260
will these students like the history once they found about the real truth?
3
S Barbash wrote: "The scholars should be thrilled that Miranda has inspired a while [sic] generation of high school students to learn more about American History."
"Popular culture doesn't lead substantially to scholarly inquiry rather it is taken as such." - American Zeitgeist
"Popular culture doesn't lead substantially to scholarly inquiry rather it is taken as such." - American Zeitgeist
Talk about nit picking. The musical will prompt thousands to read the book and that's where they will get the whole picture. It's a show...Jeeesh!
1
I would love to see the musical, as I'm fan of Lin-Manuel Miranda's work. But I have to admit it was kind of ruined for me when I heard Cokie Roberts say in an interview that Hamilton left his wife and seven children penniless.
2
Read the Chernow book the play is based upon. Hamilton, despite the criticism of him being a hero of the elite, never made any real money.
18
Thank you.
3
I have not seen "Hamilton, the musical" but I know that Hollywood movies, television shows, and yes even incredibly successful Broadway musicals are rarely, if ever, labeled as "documentaries." Historians should simply revel in the fact that history-challenged Americans even know who Alexander Hamilton was and not worry about arcane details of his actual life and work. And I say this as a retired academic who has seen all manner of popular culture misstate the past on a regular basis.
120
I agree. I always find this kind of critique hilarious: you're watching an *entertainment* in which white characters are portrayed by people of color, the Founding Fathers burst into full-on musical songs or rap battles, and the ensemble is dancing around--and you're worried about whether it's historically accurate? There is plenty of scope in the teaching materials for high school students to discuss these issues, which I'm sure they will do. Hopefully Gilder Lehrman will make them available online for us all.
322
And yet, on the other hand, despite this appreciation for the way a piece of art or entertainment inspires historical discussion and provokes learning, there is a real discomfort with that actual discussion. Instead of an article that simply praises Hamilton for its educational value as well as its artistic and entertainment value, the Times brought in historians and scholars to discuss the show on a deeper level. I have not seen the show, but from what I have read it seems to incite discussion about art, artistic interpretation, history and historical empiricism simultaneously.
5
Okay...but can you tell us what degree of historical inaccuracy and outright fiction would be okay for historians to "revel" in? 100%? 50%? Or a mere 12%?
Are you implying that an inaccurate historical portrayal is acceptable, as long as it is entertaining and sells a lot of tickets?
Or are you saying that only by providing a portrayal that is historically inaccurate can a production be of interest to large numbers of people?
If you really think that the true stories of American history aren't compelling and dramatic enough to capture widespread public interest, you might want to inquire with a filmmaker named Ken Burns.
Are you implying that an inaccurate historical portrayal is acceptable, as long as it is entertaining and sells a lot of tickets?
Or are you saying that only by providing a portrayal that is historically inaccurate can a production be of interest to large numbers of people?
If you really think that the true stories of American history aren't compelling and dramatic enough to capture widespread public interest, you might want to inquire with a filmmaker named Ken Burns.
3